Blog Stats

BCS System Rumblings: Radical Change or Just Different Labels?

Let me state upfront that there hasn’t been anything on my mind lately other than the horrific scandal at Penn State that has led to the ouster of Joe Paterno, among others. Conference realignment and the football games on the field feel pretty inconsequential compared to the allegations facing Jerry Sandusky. However, for my own sanity, I’ll try to provide a brief respite from the dark news that seems to come daily with some thoughts on the latest BCS meetings along with some new proposals being kicked around. Realignment news has gone down to a trickle lately outside of some reports this week of BYU heavily entertaining a football-only invite to the Big East, so this is a good time to take some stock of big-picture college football postseason issues.

Of course, there are many different interpretations of what “removing AQ status” actually means. A pure removal of AQ status would be a proposal that Dennis Dodd mentioned in the Neinas article linked above of simply having the top 10 teams in the BCS rankings get slotted into the various BCS bowls. That’s certainly the most egalitarian way of approaching things. Call me skeptical on this approach ever getting passed, though. A quick look at the latest BCS rankings show that the Big Ten’s highest-ranked team is at #15 and I can guarantee you that there will be a 3-week blizzard in hell before the Big Ten (or Pac-12, for that matter) gives up a Rose Bowl slot based on some top 10 ranking qualification. Every current AQ conference except for the Big 12 has had at least one champion ranked lower than #10 during the BCS era (yes, even the almighty and all powerful SEC) and more leagues adding conference championship games make that prospect even more likely in the future. Call me crazy, but I don’t see conferences that have 100% guarantees today giving them up (even if there’s a 90% chance that they wouldn’t be hurt in practice). The Big Ten would rather take a guaranteed Rose Bowl slot in 2011 than risk giving that up in order to shoot the moon to get 3 BCS bowl slots in 2010 (which would’ve happened under a top 10 rule).

This gets back to the question of what is actually meant by “AQ status”. One person that I’ve talked to with strong non-AQ conference ties (so there’s a measure of an admission against one’s self-interest here) said that another proposal under consideration by the college football commissioners is almost the flip side of the top 10 rule, where the BCS would exist only to create a #1 vs. #2 national championship game and the 4 current BCS bowls would be released to enter into whatever individual deals that they would like with various conferences and teams. In that scenario, there would technically no longer be AQ status, although in practice, the individual bowls would provide elevated status to the handful of chosen conferences that they agree to have tie-ins with (most prominently, the Rose Bowl with the Big Ten and Pac-12). Indeed, look at this quote from BCS executive director Bill Hancock following the BCS meetings on Monday:

“The BCS is so misunderstood,” he said. “It was created to match up No. 1 vs. No. 2. And because of the way the critics have reacted to it, it has become more than that. It was never intended to be anything more than that.”

From a 10,000-foot knee-jerk legal viewpoint, this might actually be a great move by the power conferences to institute this proposed change. The main thrust of the antitrust argument against the BCS (which, to be clear, I don’t agree with) is that the four BCS bowls and six AQ conferences have collectively created a cartel that has pricing power that excludes competition and subverts the free market. Letting each of the BCS bowls negotiate their deals individually, though, seriously undermines the cartel argument, as entering into such individual deals is the very essence of free market capitalism.* In essence, those bowls and conferences could actually become more exclusive than they are today under the current BCS system (as nothing would stop them from directly entering into contracts for multiple SEC and Big Ten schools while ignoring the current non-AQ schools completely) and remove a major legal issue from the table at the very same time. I could certainly see the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12 signing up for this ASAP (as they all would be protected by bowl tie-ins), while I have no idea why the Big East and the non-AQ conferences would allow this to happen. The irony is that the BCS institutionalized a divide between AQ and non-AQ conferences, yet those non-AQ conferences got better access to top tier bowls as a result of that institution. Meanwhile, if the concepts of “AQ” and “non-AQ” go away, the non-AQ conferences may end up being worse off with the top bowls shutting them out in their own individual deals.

(* Note that American antitrust law is focused on protecting consumers, whereas European antitrust law is about preserving competition in and of itself. They’re related, but not really the same thing, as there are instances where a relative lack of competition could arguably be beneficial to consumers. A classic example is the rise of big box stores, where a handful of large stores have the ability to negotiate better prices with suppliers and those savings are passed onto consumers. There might be more competition on paper if you have dozens of small stores competing against each other, but consumers may get better prices if there are just three or four large stores in an area. European antitrust law cares about the former, while U.S. antitrust law favors the latter. In the bowl context, what the consumers want is indicated by TV ratings and ticket sales (as opposed to opinion polls). If bowls are left to their individual devices and prefer taking a 7-5 Notre Dame team instead of an undefeated Houston squad because the Irish would garner better viewership levels and fans in the seats, then that’s perfectly fine from a legal standpoint.)

“The thinking about AQ status is pretty different for the Pac-12 and Big Ten than it is for everybody else,” said Scott. “It isn’t as relevant given our unique relationship with the Rose Bowl. It doesn’t really matter for us one way or the other whether there’s AQ status or not.”

So, at least from the Pac-12 perspective, the Rose Bowl tie-in is completely separate from the concept of AQ status (even though in practicality, a guaranteed bowl-tie in exactly what AQ status is all about). It seems to me that it’s a matter of semantics. At the same time, if the Big Ten and Pac-12 still keep guaranteed tie-ins with the Rose Bowl, then the SEC is going to want its guaranteed tie-in with the Sugar Bowl, the Big 12 will want it with the Fiesta Bowl and the ACC will demand it with the Orange Bowl. The term “AQ status” might go away, but tie-ins would be here to stay. It would be the entities that don’t have tie-ins, such as the Big East, the current non-AQ conferences and even (gasp) Notre Dame that are at risk.

There could still be workarounds for the Big East in this scenario. For instance, if it came down to having to deal with individual bowls without an overarching BCS system, the Big East could link in Notre Dame in the manner that it has done with other bowl tie-ins (such as the Champs Sports Bowl). While that might not guarantee that the Big East champ goes to a top tier bowl every single year, linking in the Irish would make the league much more attractive in a pure bowl free market system.

Still, I’m sure that the Big East would much rather keep the current BCS system in place. In a weird twist, the non-AQ conferences may feel the same way. When the power conferences are the ones suggesting changes to the BCS system, rest assured that it’s not going to be done to help out the little guy.

Great piece. I have to laugh at the playoff/anti bcs crowd who continue to shot themselves in the foot. A playoff is not going to happen for a varity of reasons but most importantly the Big 10 and SEC are not going to take less money than they currently do and to make a playoff work with those type of payouts would price a playoff out of any network budget.

The little sister of the poor need to realise they produce almost no value that they keep asking for more and more is going to cause this reaction. Boise State only has value when they are undefeated after that first loss they lose 80 percent of the casual audiance and they don’t have a fan base worth mentioning. The current system was their ticket were teams that would never get a bid received one almost every year for the past half decade. Under the likely plans they will never be taken by the big boys. The 4th or 5th Big Ten or SEC team has more value as a second team in the Fiesta, Sugar or Orange bowls than an undefeated Houston or a 1 loss Boise.

The bowls aren’t that lucrative to the schools right now either. In its budget report, Michigan received between $1.85M to 2.04M in recent years from the net bowl revenue component from the Big Ten Conference. The FY 2012 figure is around $2.2M, so that means the B10 is looking at perhaps $26.2M in net bowl revenue that it will distribute equally to the twelve teams in the conference. See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-11/2011-06-X-13.pdf

For argument sake, let’s say that the playoff system does pay $700M per year. In 2013, Division 1-A will have 123 teams–that comes to around $5.7M per team if those proceeds are divided equally.

Obviously, this isn’t the way any playoff revenue is going to be divided. One plan I’ve heard is that conferences would get $25M (just a big less than the $26.2M the Big Ten is getting for allits bowl appearances) per a team’s appearance in a playoff. For an eight-team playoff, that’s 14 appearances (8+4+2) or $350M total that’s awarded to the conferences that have teams in the playoffs. That leaves another $350M to be divided to the lesser conferences, independents teams, etc. Also keep in mind that an eight-team playoff leaves a number of teams available for the bowl system to provide additional revenue to the post-season.

The reason why this isn’t happening is that the major conference commissioners (and by extension, the presidents) don’t want to cede control of the football postseason to the NCAA. Given the option, they’d rather run it themselves rather than take the greater revenue that a playoff would generate.

That’s really a shame because the majority of college football fans would love to see a playoff (including the current POTUS) and it’d provide a number of exciting games that could be played in the same time frame that the current bowl system now exists (the latter part of December to early January). I’d live to see an eight-game playoff with the conference champions from the ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 12 and SEC gettng autobids as long as they’re in the Top 15 of the ranking system used to seed the teams. The first two rounds of the playoffs are played in the home stadiums of the higher ranked teams with the final game at a major bowl site. Those teams not in the playoffs would go to the bowls.

Using the BCS rankings from last year with that system above, this is how the first round of the 2010 playoff would have looked:

The bowl system would still be in place and teams from last year that would be available to the major bowls would be Arkansas, LSU, Michigan State, Boise State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Nevada, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Utah and South Carolina (all these teams are in Top 20 of BCS rankings, but wouldn’t be in the playoff system). These might not be the premiere matchups the bowls have enjoyed in the past, but I have little doubt that fans would still come to Pasadena to see Michigan State-Boise State or go to New Orleans to see LSU-Missouri (a future SEC regular season contest) or Phoenix (or Dallas) for Arkanas-Oklahoma State.

I actually feel the playoff proponents are on pretty solid ground here. Even if a network only agreed to pay $500M for a playoff system, it’d still be markedly more lucrative than the bowl system currently in place–and a lot more fun for the fans as well.

When the BCS rankings are finally in place and the conference champions have been crowned in a few weeks, I’ll set up what would have been the 2011 playoff using the same criteria as the one outlined above. Depending on what happens, we could see up to three SEC teams in the playoff with a couple of teams from the Big XII and/or the Pac 12.

Dan Wetzel is not a person you want to be quoting when it comes to the business side of things. He has no idea what he is talking about, he makes up numbers like the 700 million number and in general just has no idea how the business side of college football works. Just as an example the article you linked (along with his book) he still has little to no idea that some commerical rights holder is going to take their cut. I honestly think he thinks that college sports is set up like American Pro sports where the colleges own the NCAA. Never mind most of his arguments end up being for a system that looks almost exactly like the BCS at the end of the day but with a playoff instead of bowls.

I will use the 700 million figure the first thing that needs to be done though is to cut a third of the money that the commerical rights holder is going to take. This number comes from the NCAA cut of the Men’s basketball tournment which is on the low side for CRH cuts. Now you are talking about 466 million to split or about 3.8 million for each school. The SEC and the Big 10 are going to want to see at least the value they receive now from the bowls for a 1st round game (plus of course the 25 million for their CCG that has to be made up as there is no chance this game lasts). The reason why they want this money just for the first round is because they can make that money right now for 1 game. Because of NCAA principles and historic examples every team (conference) in the first round will be paid the same. So the first round in a 16 team tournment (which politically is what it will have to be 12 champs plus 4 at large) you are looking at a payout just for that round to break even 816 million. But I will use your number of 25 million per unit that comes out to 750 million or a playoff that has to fetch at least 1.1 billion.

The bowls are dead if there is a playoff. Maybe a handful can survive like the Rose and Sugar but they will have almost no TV value if any at all. Anything 2nd tier and below is gone.

The question though is who is going to pay 700 million to 1.2 billion for a playoff? Because of the calander the playoffs will either be December or January. A January playoff is DOA because of the NFL playoffs. A December playoff is not much better off. First, games will have to be played on Saturday and with the first round having 8 games and second round 4 games that means games will be on at the same time lessoning the value of the games. The second huge problem is from roughly the 15th to about the 30th no one watches TV. Before you mention bowls that are played during those dates they cost the network next to nothing and do not have to hit much of a number to profit.

As for the fans wanting a playoff this is one of those things the fans don’t know what they want. Unless you are a fan of a power house program good luck every seeing the post season. To use the Big 10 as the example if you are not tOSU, ped state, Wisconisn, Michigan or Nebraska good luck seeing the post season more than once every 15 years and that is for the Iowa and Michigan State level programs after that once every 30 years if you are lucky. How long is Tennessee going to have 99k plus fans show up when they make the playoffs once every 20 plus years? All the while Troy and Buffalo are making the post season.

Even if the schools finally get $500M in the end, it’s still more than twice as much in gross revenue than the bowl system–and perhaps three times as much as the net bowl revenue that finally gets in the pockets of the schools.

Also keep in mind that yes, the colleges do own the NCAA. The NCAA’s revenue each year comes from the men’s basketball tournament. If the major colleges wanted to get together and set up their own organization outside the NCAA (something discussed at length on this board IRT conference expansion/reorganization), they could leave the NCAA high and dry in a fortnight and keep the money for themselves. They have all the leverage, so no, I wouldn’t expect the NCAA to take the cut you’re suggesting.

I also suggest that you’re completely wrong about the conference championship games going away and your figure of $25M for the CCG game is also incorrect. There’s no need for that to happen, and as we’ve just seen with the Big XII, not every conference on the planet is looking to have one in the first place. In fact, if it was such a lucrative item, conferences would stop at 12 teams–the minimum for a conference championship game–and not add additional members like the SEC and ACC do.

I disagree that the playoff has to be 16 teams as well. Eight works very satisfactorily and it doesn’t have to include all the conference champions of the major conferences to be politically “correct”. If political correctness was driving this process, there’d be a lot more equity in the money distribution than what currently exists. In fact, the reason why I include conference champions as having autobids is to ensure that the major conferences who will drive this process (like the current BCS) all get a stake in any playoff scenario.

I sincerely doubt the bowls would die in the numbers you suggest. You do realize there are over thirty of them now. You’re suggesting that an eight team playoff will kills off over 25 of the existing bowls. Given their current number and how lucrative they are, I would argue the opposite. Some of the relatively minor bowls would still go by the wayside, but the vast majority of them will stick around for the same reasons they do now. Even you said they don’t cost the networks much money.

If you think people won’t watch a college football playoff game because it takes place in the latter part of December, then I think you’re out of touch with sports fans–not to mention college football fans. I’m also curious why you think that four college football games can’t be played on a single day without overlap. Go from noon to past midnight in the eastern time zone (which is what happens every Saturday of the regular weekend) for the first round and you can get your four games in on one day. This isn’t hard.

Again, on your final statement, I think you casually overstate the amout of attrition the bowl system will undergo if an eight-team playoff system is put in place. The two could co-exist very nicely and while a handful might not make it, there’ll still be room out there for the Insight Bowl and the Champs Sports Bowl and the Outback Bowl and all the other smaller bowls that want to host a couple of teams to play football.

There is absolutely no reason why a college football playoff rights fee would have to be split with the NCAA. The bowl system operates outside of the NCAA now. Any form of playoff would do the same.

As far as Jim’s claim that Wetzel made up the $700mm figure, that isn’t true. He got that by speaking to TV executives, media consultants and conference commissioners.

I agree with cutter that the bowls would live on if there were a true playoff. The BCS has rendered every bowl other than the BCS title game meaningless in relation to the “national title”. But the number of bowls has increased since the inception of the BCS. Cable stations crave inventory. More bowl games in December is what they want. People watch less TV in December in terms of the network entertainment offerings. However, they don’t watch less sports. College football fans want more bowl games if anything, not fewer.

You know how every year during the NCAA basketball tourney you hear people say that the men’s tournament provides something like 95% of the operating revenue for the NCAA? THAT’S why you don’t see a football playoff. I don’t care if the playoff creates $700 million or $700 billion, the schools don’t want to let the NCAA get that money and decide how to use it.

The big schools will leave the NCAA before they let the NCAA get their hands on all the football postseason revenue.

Yes. And the NCAA knows it. That’s why they would be able to do one without an NCAA cut.

As for the bowls, there are probably 8 bowls that make money for the schools-the 5 BCS bowls, Orlando, Tampa and Dallas. On the rest, the schools spend virtually all the money guaranteeing ticket sales and bringing the team, cheerleaders, band, influential alumni, etc. to the game.

I think an undefeated Houston has a lot of value to the Cotton Bowl which is a game slowly regaining its status as a major bowl alongside Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta. For example, under a system that would look a lot like the pre-Bowl Alliance system, I could see 13-0 Houston matched against the 2nd place Pac 12 team or the third place SEC team. I think that would be an attractive TV game and it would sell out.

I wouldn’t mind returning to the old bowl system and voting the NC. We can all argue about who “really” is/was the best, rather than about who should be in the top two. It would remove the facade of legitimaticy that includes 2/3 polls and 1/3 computer averages. And why 6 diferent computer’s? Can’t we decide on one formula? Nope, gotta have 6 that somehow get varying results from the same data set, or have restrictions on what kind of formulas are allowed to gain results. Lets just vote a champ and then commence bickering. That’s the fun of any ranking system anyway. A “non AQ” might get a better shake as a voted championship wouldn’t necessarily be putting the “AQ’s” paydays at risk.

I’m with you “cc”, if there never is to be a playoff–we might as well go back to the original bowl system. The BCS has always been “B-S”— the so-called championship is of the BcS (cartel), not of the national sort. It has no more relevance than the old AP, UPI, USA Today polls regarding determination of a true national champion (which obviously would require playing the games out on the field— playoff).

Personally, I don’t think I’ll see a true multi-team (i.e. 8 or more) div 1a playoff in my lifetime. That being the case–I loved the drama of the pre-BcS bowls–each bowl seemed to have more “meaning”… It was about the individual bowl, NOT about some computer selected B-S where the so-called championship game takes away from the other bowls (that often have better matchups). Besides… back in the day, a lot of the excitement was AFTER the bowls with all the chatter about who deserved to be the national champion (mythical). Split titles were all the rage.

While we’re at it—let’s go ahead and reduce the number of bowls by about half of what the number has now grown to— It is painfully obvious that no one really cares about the toilet bowls (see attendance/viewership) AND why continue coddling mediocrity… NO 6-6 team deserves post-season rewards…

Another option is to have the BCS rankings but still have the bowls use their traditional tie-ins or pick teams however they want. The two highest ranked teams that win their bowl games would then advance to the plus-one national championship game. This was one of the proposals examined a couple of years ago right before the current BCS TV contract was signed.

As a lifelong Big Ten fan, I cannot understand our obsession with the f***ing Rose Bowl! What idiot thought it was a good idea to play a Pac8/10/12 team in a Pac8/10/12 stadium every year?

Then we do the same thing by sending our #2 and #3 teams to Florida to play SEC teams. Insanity.

People wonder why the Big 10 does crappy in bowl games, it’s because we always play road games! How ’bout we play the “Rose Bowl” in Texas or Florida? Or better yet, let’s play it every other year in the Midwest? I’m not even talking an outdoor stadium, we can play in Indy. See if those Pac12 teams travel as well as the Big10.

This is probably the best of the +1 proposals. It returns the significance & tie-in traditions to ALL the top tier bowl games year – without the indignity of those bowls appearing like a semifinal in a bracket.

As a lifelong Big Ten fan, I cannot understand our obsession with the f***ing Rose Bowl! What idiot thought it was a good idea to play a Pac8/10/12 team in a Pac8/10/12 stadium every year?

Kenneth “Tug” Wilson (the B10 commissioner at the time) thought it was a good idea, although the previous commissioner (John Griffith) did most of the negotiating before he died in office. First, why wouldn’t midwesterners want a trip to CA in January as a reward? Second, why would pacific teams want to come to the midwest in January? Don’t forget that this is well before the days of easy jet travel across the country or even the interstates. CA was an exotic destination that most B10 people had never visited back then.

Other important reasons were that the B10 and P8 (and its forerunners) saw eye to eye on important issues like amateurism and desegregation, unlike the south at that time who wanted all white teams of semi-pro players. Still, the deal almost ended in the early ’60s before becoming entrenched like it is now. Unlike you, the B10 commissioners and the COP/C have long seen the value of tradition and the relative unimportance of having a tougher bowl game. Bowls are supposed to be celebrations of a good season, not the battlefield for conference supremacy fights online.

Then we do the same thing by sending our #2 and #3 teams to Florida to play SEC teams. Insanity.

What is your better option? Start several bowl games in the footprint and have a bunch of warm weather teams agree to come play outdoors in the midwest in winter? If there was money to be made, those bowls would exist. Even B10 teams look at the Pizza Bowl as a crappy game because it’s in Detroit. Why would the SEC or P12 agree to send a team there?

People wonder why the Big 10 does crappy in bowl games, it’s because we always play road games! How ’bout we play the “Rose Bowl” in Texas or Florida? Or better yet, let’s play it every other year in the Midwest? I’m not even talking an outdoor stadium, we can play in Indy. See if those Pac12 teams travel as well as the Big10.

People are well aware that the B10 plays the P12 in CA, the SEC in FL and the B12 in TX. That’s how bowls work. They get a tie-in to a local conference to assure fan support and then link to another conference. You aren’t going to get a FL bowl to not have the ACC or SEC as a tie in if they can help it. Similarly, the TX and CA bowls all want the B12 and P12. You can find some lower tier bowls that might reach for a bigger name, but those are lower tier bowls.

I’d also like to point out that road games aren’t the only reason the B10 does poorly in bowls. I think the B10 has focused more on winning the conference than on the bowl (a legacy of Woody and Bo), so teams were emotionally spent by Thanksgiving and didn’t take the bowl as seriously. I also think the B10 has tended to schedule a tougher bowl slate than other conferences because B10 fans travel so well. The other fact is that many B10 teams have lacked the athleticism to compete with their opponents in bowls.

Please get over your pipe dream of the B10 hosting a major bowl every other year. Bowls depend on a bunch of traveling fans staying a long time and spending lots of money, and you can’t get that in January in the midwest. It might be different if there was good skiing near a major midwestern city, but there isn’t.

The old days of bowls were a little better. Not every bowl had 2 locked tie ins so you got some different matchups in unusual places. The Fiesta Bowl was good for that, for example.

I’m not saying we should have bowl games in the midwest, that was merely a rant against the lopsidedness of our bowl tie ins. But I do ask, why is the Big10 the only confernce that has to travel so far? Like I said, why not play the “Rose Bowl” in Texas? Why not make SEC teams meet us in Phoenix or LA? And if you’re saying that the warm weather schools’ fans won’t travel like Big10 fans, then the Big10 needs to make sure they’re banging that drum long and hard and making sure everyone knows what conference has real fan support.

I wonder the cost of moving the Rose Bowl to Texas. Do you understand how large that stadium is? Do all the Rose Parade floats drive from Pasadena, or do they duplicate storage and assemply areas? Frankly, a week in So Cal in January is far more inviting than a week in Dallas (think last years Super Bowl) and once on a plane it’s only a bit longer flight. Besides, if you want a Texas bowl game get hooked into the Cotton or Sun.

SWASS – A big reason the B1G fans travel so well to Florida, Texas, and California in December and January for bowl games is because its F***in’ cold in B1G country that time of year.

Yes, the B1G has great fans, but the bowl game is a great excuse to leave the frozen tundra and soak up some 70 degree weather for a few days.

Having attended two Cap One bowl games in the last few years, I can tell you that many of the Iowa and Penn State fans I met were more excited about Mickey Mouse than attending the actual game in that dump of stadium they have in Orlando. Two years ago, the Penn State fans did bring some crappy weather down to Orlando with them, proving that the sun isn’t always shining in Florida.

I’m not saying we should have bowl games in the midwest, that was merely a rant against the lopsidedness of our bowl tie ins.

Rather than just rant, why not add a viable solution at the end?

But I do ask, why is the Big10 the only confernce that has to travel so far?

1. The B10 chooses to travel that far, it doesn’t have to do it. The B10 wants the most visibility on 1/1, the highest payouts and the best locations for the fans. That means playing in the Rose Bowl and several FL and TX bowls. The B10 also likes the geographic diversity to get near their national alumni and keep the bowl trips fresh for fans.

2. The B10 is the only one of the big 5 conferences that is entirely in the north. Why would southern conferences travel across country when they already have bowls nearby? Why would bowls want to depend on 2 teams bringing fans a long way when they can keep one close to home?

3. The BE travels a little less than the B10 because they are less desirable. Western bowls won’t pay for them, so they get lower tier bowls against ACC, non-AQ and low ranked SEC and B12 teams. Would you rather play in Memphis, NYC, Charlotte and Birmingham in January?

Like I said, why not play the “Rose Bowl” in Texas?

It’s called the Cotton Bowl, and they prefer SEC and B12 teams since they are closer. They’d certainly be willing to take the B10 champ if the B10 left the Rose, but why leave the best bowl game of them all? The Rose gets better ratings, pays more and has much better weather, not to mention the parade and all the tradition for the B10. I’d rather play the P12 champ in the Rose than the B12 champ in the Cotton, which is what would happen.

Why not make SEC teams meet us in Phoenix or LA?

You can’t “make” the SEC do anything except for the NCG (and back when that screwed u pthe bowl tie-ins). UF beat OSU in Phoenix. TX beat MI in LA. It’s not just location.

And if you’re saying that the warm weather schools’ fans won’t travel like Big10 fans, then the Big10 needs to make sure they’re banging that drum long and hard and making sure everyone knows what conference has real fan support.

The SEC fans will travel just fine for any decent bowl. They wouldn’t spend as long in Detroit or Phoenix as B10 fans spend in Tampa, though, since they aren’t escaping the weather as much.

If you would narrow your argument, then I could agree with you. I fully believe that no school should get to play the NCG within 500 miles of home unless both teams are about the same distance away.

Potentially prohibited major bowl sites
Atlanta – SEC and ACC except for the edges
Dallas – B12 and SEC except for the edges
LA – P12 except for the northwest
Miami – SEC and ACC except for the edges
New Orleans – SEC and B12 except for the edges
Phoenix – P12 except for the northwest

LSU has only won BCS titles in New Orleans. FL won one in Miami. On the other hand, FSU lost in Miami and USC lost in LA. I would still prefer a truly neutral site every time.

Under the current BCS system I would MUCH rather give up our Rose Bowl tie-in and just send the Big10 champ wherever they land. I understand we will sometimes suffer because of geography (Illinois facing LSU in the Sugar Bowl, for example), but I’d rather take a chance on occassionally getting a fair match-up rather than insisting that it’s such a great tradition to play a PAC 8/10/12 team in a Pac 8/10/12 stadium every single year. The Fiest Bowl will almost always provide a neutral field; same for the Orange.

That wasn’t your whole argument. Your argument was about why the B10 should stop playing the P12 in CA and the SEC in FL (and presumably the B12 in TX, too). There was even talk of making those teams come to the B10 every other time, but then you said you weren’t advocating for midwestern bowls. You are more concerned with giving up home field advantage in what are essentially exhibition games than tradition, visibility, payouts and alumni access.

Under the current BCS system I would MUCH rather give up our Rose Bowl tie-in and just send the Big10 champ wherever they land.

I respectfully will tell you that is a an ill-advised position. The Rose Bowl is the best bowl game. It has the best time slot, gets the most viewers by far, and used to pay the most before the BCS made all 4 the same. Without that tie in, the B10 would have gotten fewer at large bids, too. Thankfully Delany and the COP/C see the value in that link and will keep it as long as possible.

I understand we will sometimes suffer because of geography (Illinois facing LSU in the Sugar Bowl, for example), but I’d rather take a chance on occassionally getting a fair match-up rather than insisting that it’s such a great tradition to play a PAC 8/10/12 team in a Pac 8/10/12 stadium every single year.

Did OR have some major advantage over OSU that I am forgetting? Only USC and UCLA get a major advantage in the Rose Bowl based on how well the B10 travels. The Fiesta is only an issue with ASU and AZ. The Cotton would be a problem with OU, UT or TAMU. The Sugar is bad with half of the SEC (LSU, AL, AU, etc). The Orange is bad with UF, FSU and Miami. I fail to see the advantage in going to a lesser bowl to face the same challenges.

You’re right, I respectfully withdraw my objections. And when the Big10 goes 2-6 in bowl games again I’ll just bite my tongue and nod my head at all the pundits who proclaim the Big10 is “down again this year.”

And when the Big10 goes 2-6 in bowl games again I’ll just bite my tongue and nod my head at all the pundits who proclaim the Big10 is “down again this year.”

You may find this hard to understand, but Delany and the COP/C consider other things more important than the B10’s bowl record. They want national exposure and games close to southern alumni. They want to preserve the tradition of the B10 in the Rose Bowl, too. Nobody forced Delany to schedule such a tough slate of games. He could easily play some lesser teams in lesser games instead, but he believes in playing the best.

The other conferences don’t see a reason to travel across country for their bowl games. Why is playing the SEC in New Orleans or the ACC in Miami any better than playing the P12 in the Rose Bowl? Why get lesser ratings for the same road game feel? Why play yet another SEC team in a bowl?

I would much rather have the traditional tie in with the Rose Bowl than jump to the Fiesta against the new B12. The B10 has no real history with the B12 and the B12 is getting worse anyway. If the B12 switches to the Cotton, I wouldn’t want the B10 to be the anchor of the Fiesta. I like having a #1/#1 match up, and the tradition of the Rose is 10 times better than the Fiesta.

It would be ideal for fans to have all bowl games be truly neutral site games. That isn’t possible for any but the biggest bowls, though, and even they prefer to have at least one team from near by to assure lots of fans. If it bothers you so much, get some financial backers and start a major bowl in the midwest. If you don’t like that, maybe you can bump the Pizza or Pinstripe Bowl up to the big time and have the B10 as an anchor.

If the B10 wants to avoid a 2-6 bowl record, I suggest the teams get better. Where are the nationally elite teams other than OSU? The SEC and B12 are better because they multiple teams at the top. When one has a bad year, another steps up. It has nothing to do with where bowl games are played, and everything to do with who plays in those games.

They use 6 computers because people don’t agree on how to rank teams. If you take any group of 6 CFB fans and make them come up with a ranking system based purely on data (no eyeball test, no conference affiliations, no name brands), what are the odds you get 6 different systems.

Every computer system uses different data and evaluates it differently. There is no perfect system, so the BCS chose 6 that represent the spectrum of methods and have some credibility. I think they made a huge mistake when they refused to let the computers consider margin of victory. Why knowingly deprive a computer model of data that might improve its accuracy?

They were so concerned with the PC appearance of not running up the score that they took an important tool away from the modellers. A smart model would give diminishing returns to increasing MOV anyway. That’s why I like that Sagarin still published his rankings with and without using MOV.

“They were so concerned with the PC appearance of not running up the score that they took an important tool away from the modellers.”

It’s also worth noting that it isn’t as though the pollsters are unaware of the margin of victory. Do you think perhaps there’s a reason that Wisconsin aims to put up big numbers against Indiana-caliber chumps? Perhaps Boise State has a motive in trying to beat everybody they play 60-3?

They set the computers up to fail — honestly, I don’t know why the computer guys even let their systems be used. I don’t know that I would. When the public doesn’t like the BCS results, they blame those durned ‘puters, but there is bound to be a gap between the poll results and the computers when the polls can consider margin of victory but the computers can’t.

And amazingly all the parts that didn’t come out just happen to be all the parts that show how marvelous Joe is and how well he actually handled the situation. I’m sure Joe would never have tried to make his actions known before (or even after) getting fired because he enjoys being vilified to protect the suits at PSU.

PSU can’t order a fired employee to stay silent, but he did. It would have been very easy to release a statement saying that Joe did much more than the GJ report indicated but he didn’t want to give too many details with the legal process ongoing.

Also, the lack of any information in the GJ report indicating that Paterno did follow up with the AD and VP several times is telling. That would be key information for the charges against them.

The GJ “report” that you refer to is a summary, not a report of all proceedings. We don’t know what would be included in the hundreds of pages of an actual report. Paterno’s silence, after his initial desire to talk, may be due to the AG or more likely his lawyer and not his employer.

What has bothered me the most about this is the leap to conclusions about Paterno without evidence one way or another. We have a LONG lifetime of evidence that shows what kind of person Paterno is, we have no evidence from the GJ summary.

We have a LONG lifetime of evidence that shows what kind of person Paterno is, we have no evidence from the GJ summary.

No, we have a lifetime of evidence of what kind of public persona Joe wants to present. That doesn’t mean that’s really who he is. You would have said the same things about Sandusky a few months ago, with his long history of helping children through his charity on top of taking in foster kids and adopting kids. How did that turn out?

Very good point about Sandusky. By that logic all of us are suspect though. I’ll wait to hear more details before declaring that Paterno is a actually a bad guy because it turned out that Sandusky, like many psychopaths, fooled many people.

Very good point about Sandusky. By that logic all of us are suspect though. I’ll wait to hear more details before declaring that Paterno is a actually a bad guy because it turned out that Sandusky, like many psychopaths, fooled many people.

We are all suspect. My point is that since Sandusky came as such a surprise, you really can’t use the “we know Joe is a good guy” defense. You are welcome to give him the benefit of the doubt, but not to assume that everyone else should also give him that benefit.

I don’t know Joe at all, and I’m not assuming he’s a bad guy. Based on what I’ve seen and heard, though, my opinion is that he didn’t do what he should have. After this came out there were some not so flattering comments from anonymous coaches (current or former, I don’t know) about Joe’s personality that are at odds with his public persona. They might know him better than either of us.

What do you have to say about your basketball program now Ezcuse? With all the anger you have had towards PSU (rightfully I might add) I would think you would want Boeheim fired and the whole school to clean house.

While I got a little dig in at EZ yesterday regarding that I see them as very different situations. From everything we know right now nobody outside of Fine at Syracuse had any clue about what he was doing.

Now Boeheim might want to learn to keep his mouth shut until more of the facts come out…but Jim has never been one to shy away from saying things that make him look like a dumbass.

Purduemoe. Not a lot of time today. One point. I see these as both similar and different. Where most different is that no known victims after 2005–when Syracuse could have just canned Fine for even having an accusation. But they hired a law firm to investigate instead. Turned up nothing–including a failure to corroborate any of the story. And police had already looked into.

Personally, I’m very glad Boeheim spoke the way he did. Made me feel much better about the situation. Not a very good idea legally to speak up that way, but his anger showed me that at least HE is telling the truth. I trust my gut and I’ll be very surprised if this story goes much further.

I could certainly see the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12 signing up for this ASAP (as they all would be protected by bowl tie-ins)

Gotta disagree with you on the ACC backing this. Without the BCS there is no way the ACC could get a guaranteed tie in with the big bowls. The Orange Bowl wants to drop them right NOW, and on the open market the ACC champ would not only be valued below the PAC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC champs, but also the Big 10 and SEC number 2’s, probably the Big XII and PAC number 2’s and maybe even the Big 10 and SEC number 3’s.

I’m not as certain. The Orange Bowl is still going to want a tie-in and I just don’t see how they avoid the label of being a 2nd tier bowl (granted a high one) if they have the SEC or Big Ten #2. The ACC looks to be on the upswing, might pay off more in future years.

That said, I think the ACC would be hesitant here still because its likelihood of getting a 2nd BCS bowl are greater in the current system than outside of it.

@frug: I tend to agree with eric on this one: yes, the orange bowl wants to drop the champ of the Virginia Tech Conference for obvious reasons (the VT “fans” don’t travel, and are tired of the orange bowl), but at the same time, there’s no other Big 5 Conference champ to scoop up a tie-in with (the Big Least is obviously not part of the Big 5). and, yes, SEC #2 vs B1G #2 may have a better draw than VT, but the capital one bowl’s already got that locked down (and, let’s just admit that for years the capital one bowl has already felt like the fifth bcs bowl). for the orange bowl, it might come down to: continue the relationship with the ACC champ, or get religated down to peach bowl status…

@eric: yeah, the acc might be hesitant about going to the newly proposed system, but, what choice do they have? if the B1G, SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12 are pushing this through, it might come down to: get on the train or get passed by. the other option would be if there was a divide with the sides being: B1G, SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12 vs ACC, Big Least, and all non-AQs…that’d provide some fun negociating drama

The Orange Bowl is behind only the Rose and maybe Sugar Bowl in terms of historic prestige. It may fall a bit behind in this system, but the SEC and Big Ten would be thrilled to send their #2 teams there if this system came about.

One of the problems the Orange Bowl has is that it can never get an SEC team until an SEC team fails to make the BCS championship game (since the Sugar has first dibs on the 2nd team) and it only has a 1 in 3 chance of grabbing a Big Ten team even if a Big Ten team doesn’t go to the championship game.

@m: I like the idea of the Big East/ND/MountUSA bowl alliance as it allows ND to maintain its independence (a necessity for that program) and allows any potential BCS buster to get scooped up in the Big East relaunch and MountUSA unweildy alliance, however, I think BYU is still going to go to the Big East

I’m still holding fast to the idea that the orange bowl won’t give up a conference champ for a game of second choices simply for the concept that you need a Big 5 conference champ to remain a high level bowl

then the Capital One would take the match up of the teams not in the Sugar/Cotton off years, so, in even years, it would be:
Sugar: SEC #1 vs Big 12 #1
Cotton: Big 12 #2 vs B1G #2
Capital One: SEC #2 vs ACC #2

but, that would religate the fiesta bowl down to non-bcs status, however, with all their legal troubles, they might not be able to prevent that. and, the capital one bowl would still get #2 vs #2 match ups

I would simplify it even further based on the long string of posts from the last thread. The B1G and PAC played 5 inter conference games this season, and they share the Rose Bowl. The ACC and SEC played 5 inter conference games this season, and they could share the Sugar Bowl. Then you come up with tiered bowls from that point on after you revive the Cotton Bowl as the B12 bowl rep. it is also predicated on the B12 getting back to 12 teams and a CCG.

While probably not perfect, it was an attempt to keep parity between conferences so you do not have ACC #2 playing SEC #8 or B12 #2 playing B1G #8 or some such imbalance. If the 2 best teams in the country were Ohio State and Nebraska, they could still meet in the MNC, but it would shift the B1G teams down 2. Instead of B1G #5 playing ACC #5, you have B1G #7 playing ACC #5.

I like it except without a playoff proper (I’m not for one and don’t believe FB lends itself as easily as other sports to one) the regular season is the defacto playoff, especially with CCG”s. Therefore, there should never be a NC participant that is not a conference champ. If tOSU and UNL are the 2 best teams then if tOSU is the B1G champ that year they should dispatch their opponent. The only complaint would be from those few UNL fans that would chant “we’re #2, we’re #2″. If tOSU were to lose in the NC it validates not including UNL.

VT fans travel great. Maybe they are tired of the Orange Bowl. But when Texas & VT went to the Sugar Bowl in 96, I felt like the Hokies outnumbered us Longhorn fans. Now that was VT’s first major bowl, but they have done well since.

No doubt the ACC has been down of late, but FSU and Miami are historically significant programs in their own backyard. Having a shot at them should be enough to make the Orange Bowl keep it’s tie-in with the ACC. No reason they couldn’t sign a Big10 or SEC #2 for the opponent.

I think there’s a chance the Orange Bowl keeps the ACC#1 while signing either Big Ten or SEC#2 as the opponent. That would be a good national ratings grabber, and the ACC champ would be more excited about their opponent.

This is the list of the non-ACC teams in the Orange Bowl the last 5 years:
Louisville
Kansas
Cincinnati
Iowa
Stanford

Iowa is the only school from the Big Ten or SEC they’ve gotten to pick, and its not even one of the ‘kings’. While the ACC champ isn’t as desirable as the SEC, Big Ten, or (for how long?) Big 12, I think it has value when paired with a top team from those conferences.

If they aren’t tied into the BCS system, the Orange can keep the ACC champ but still land a quality opponent. It’s been the Big East and weaker conference champs (Kansas, Stanford) that’s made the game lame. Iowa and PSU actually got the game decent ratings in recent years when squared off with ACC foes.

If I’m understanding this correctly, the Orange Bowl could invite anyone it wanted to to play Clemson/VaTech winner this year. It could bring in one of SEC West leftovers…could bring in Big Ten #2 team…could bring Big 12 #2 team. All of those sound like solid games to me.

Huge loss by USM tonight. That hurts UH and means 13-0 UH is the only CUSA champ that can get a BCS at large (12-1 USM might have been able to make #16). On the other hand, that helps TCU a little bit.

Good article. I also have thought that in recent years, non-aq schools have actually benefitted from the BCS and dare I say, made college football more exciting as it brings in some of the March Madness, David v. Goliath angle to the bowl system. I think their are 2 angles on the BCS that get mixed together unfortunately- first is the 1 v. 2 matchup for the MNC. Yes, that is the first priority. I am one that thinks the system is fine and at most, the plus 1 system that takes 4 teams in the mix for MNC would be the max that would be needed to play off the best teams for all the marbles. I really don’t see how non-aq comes into play here as rarely if ever would a non-aq be considered one of the top 2 or even top 4 for this. If the major non-aqs get into a tougher conference like we are seeing, then this question resolves itself even more.
The second BCS issue is non-aqs getting into the major bowls and criteria for doing so. This is where I think the BCS is actually doing well by providing those matchups where a non-aq has actually gone above and beyond and earned its way in. Big schools can bitch as they want but to me, it is a matter of put your money where your mouth is and crush them if it is unfair from a season long competition perspective- big bowls come weeks after the season ends.
I really have a hard time buying any antitrust issue now as criteria exist for access and it has shown that it works. How can that be an antitrust violation on the merits? Crazy things happen when it comes down to a judge or panel of judges, but I just can’t see it when the key argument would be saying something doesn’t work when recent history shows that is does work.

New thread, same issues, simple question that has not been adequately answered: has any visitor of this board either directly contacted the Big 10 office, the Office of the President of your Big Ten school or the faculty rep. from your school on the Big 10 Athletics Committee. to urge the Big 10 not to select PSU to represent the Big 10 in a bowl game? I have done all three. Do you believe that “it is an internal matter” or ” you don’t want to punish the current football players” or “the show must go on” and therefore the Big 10 should ensure that PSU represents the Big 10 in six weeks or so? Is this the most appropriate institutional response by the members of the Big 10 (including PSU)? Or are you personally opposed to PSU’s representation but simply don’t want to “get involved’? I hope it is not the former but if it is the latter — if not now when? How bad would a situation be before you write an email or make a call?

To recap: a systemic, widespread institutional failure to govern for at least 13 years that affected 40-50 or more children occurred at PSU and the primary enabling unit at PSU was PSU’s football operations. Bowl games are described as “celebrations” and “a reward” — is this the appropriate response by PSU at this time — to celebrate less than two months after being forced to bring this sordid mess into the spotlight? Especially when PSU was dragged into responding to the abuse — they could have been proactive in any of three decades about this problem.

Not letting the PSU team go to a bowl won’t send anyone a ‘lesson’. It won’t help anyone who has been hurt by this scandal. It won’t do anything to prevent this happening in the future. It won’t in any way improve the situation. Other than that, the idea has a lot going for it.

What happened at Penn State is despicable, but I won’t campaign for this. If the Penn State football team can win their final 2 games and CCG, I don’t have a problem with it. I’m a documented PSU fan, and horrors of this are hard to fathom. But if the B1G continues to allow them to compete, they should garner whatever “reward” is at the end of that tunnel.

The “reward” would be for the players and fans. It certainly wouldn’t be a celebration of child rape. They are punishing those responsible thus far. If more names come out, then they should be removed from their position as well.

Other than some kind of not really pious “look at us…look how humble we are…we canceled our season, declined our bowl game, canceled next season, etc.” type of statement to appease the masses, I don’t see what purpose it serves. Would you forgive them if they did all this? I know I wouldn’t. They’d still have to make serious changes.

If this horror film isn’t enough for Penn State (and college football as a whole) to realize that having the coach basically run the University, then only removing college football everywhere would be sufficient to make sure this never happens again.

I’ll do that when the Big East/ACC argues for Syracuse to be banned from the tournament this year. While that case is in the early stages, it also involves an internal review that covered things up, and in Syracuse the coach is still on staff, and was the whole time the allegations were going on. Yet ESPN barely mentions it (on the radio at least) this morning. Another horrific act, and I hope Cuse cleans house like PSU did.

Penn State is a name… a brand. 5 people associated with that brand did something horrific, and now in your infinite wisdom, you want to punish millions of other people just because they are associated with the same brand (literally millions mind you).

How about next time some one named rich does something bad, we sentence you to life in prision because you have the same name…

New thread, same issues, simple question that has not been adequately answered:

Just because you don’t get the answer you want doesn’t mean the question has not been answered adequately.

has any visitor of this board either directly contacted the Big 10 office, the Office of the President of your Big Ten school or the faculty rep. from your school on the Big 10 Athletics Committee. to urge the Big 10 not to select PSU to represent the Big 10 in a bowl game?

Isn’t that sort of a trick question to ask since we all have no idea what anyone else may or may not have done in private? Anyway, I haven’t but I’m sure someone has.

I have done all three.

And I was right.

Do you believe that “it is an internal matter” or ” you don’t want to punish the current football players” or “the show must go on” and therefore the Big 10 should ensure that PSU represents the Big 10 in six weeks or so?

The B10 should have nothing to do with it. The scandal is a PSU and Commonwealth of PA matter (and maybe another state if he did something at a bowl game) and is bigger than a conference. The bowls are run by grown ups and can decide for themselves if they want PSU. The Rose has already said they’ll accept them if PSU wins the B10. The only other bowl that could be obligated is the Insight (I think, otherwise it’s the Gator) since the loser of the B10 CCG is guaranteed to be no lower than the 4th pick by the bowls.

Is this the most appropriate institutional response by the members of the Big 10 (including PSU)?

Taking the time to fully investigate the matter and prosecute any offenders is the appropriate response. Waiting for the results is the mature response to such a situation. It’s not the B10’s job to be judge, jury and executioner within a couple of weeks of the story breaking. They don’t know any more than we do at this point. They were right to remove Paterno’s name from the championship trophy, but that’s as far as they should go right now.

To recap: a systemic, widespread institutional failure to govern for at least 13 years that affected 40-50 or more children occurred at PSU and the primary enabling unit at PSU was PSU’s football operations.

A recap should condense the important facts into a brief statement, not make them up. That is a recap of a worst case based on the allegations and the GJ report. It has yet to be proven that anyone broke the law, let alone that “40-50 or more children” were victims of sexual abuse. The “failure to govern” and “enabling” are also your personal opinions of the situation.

no. i have not and will not urge the B1G or anyone else to reject PSU as a bowl team. the players had nothing to do with Sandusky. “banning” PSU from a bowl only punishes the players for something they had nothing to do with, no control over, etc. Paterno is gone, so he has been “punished” for whatever he did wrong (if anything). if you think Tom Bradley did something wrong, then the proper course of action is to fire him (and etc., with any other coach/PSU employee). but, again, the players did not have anything to do with this and should not be “punished” for Sandusky’s evil deeds.

1. My heart goes out to OSU for the loss of the coaches. A second horrible plane crach for that school.

2. Look for LOTS more molestation accusations around the country. Same exact stuff as with what the Catholic Church went through. It’s an institutional phenom, not an isolated thing.

3. The bowls were originally set up for locals to make some money after the holidays, not to determine anything as to who is the best team. The AP pool always determined that. I agree with the above comments of going back to the voting system and let the bowls and confernces decide who they want to play in them – purley for entertainment value of seeing two teams play from different conferences who would never have gotten the chance to play each other. A playoff system would crush the bowls, and I think most people, even the playoff advocates, would miss the bowls.

The problem the bowls have is that with the conferences expanding there are fewer opportunities to have top tier bowls. Even if the cotton bowl remains second tier and they add a plus one, there are still only five power conferences (four and a half, really, until Miami and F$U come back). The Rose already takes two conferences champs. The sugar will likely hang onto the very valuable SEC champ.

What’s left at that point? Texas/OU conference champ, the ACC that the orange is no longer enamoured with, and ND and BYU.

The bowl that faces the biggest risk of being kicked to the curb in a reshuffle is the Fiesta. The Cotton Bowl has the history between the two and now has JerryWorld. The Fiesta also has a massive governance scandal. I could totally see the Cotton getting the Big 12 tie-in back now, especially since the Big 12 is increasingly SWC 2.0.

The Sugar would probably revert to its “best SEC available” versus “best big name available.” That’s how they always schedule anyway.

The Rose will remain BIG-PAC. They didn’t want to host anything besides that in the first place.

Expect very strong bidding between the Southeast bowls to have access to the SEC #2 and the B1G #2 if tie-ins are up for grabs. Unlike ACC/Big East/non-AQ teams, the venue is certain about what they are going to get.

I really do believe the BCS NCG should pit #1 vs #2, but the BCS bowls should pit top against top so you do not have another OU vs UCONN game. The Bowls would fall out according to historic ties with the oldest bowls being the most protected.

The B12 is still viable, and the Fiesta jumped them by scheduling independent schools. The issue is those independent schools are now in conferences. PSU => B1G, FSU + Miami + Pitt + SU => ACC, WVU + TCU + ?? => B12, and Utah => PAC. This means in the history of the Fiesta only Wyoming, BYU, Notre Dame, Louisville, UCONN, and Boise State remain out of the ACC / B12 / B1G / PAC / SEC group. Louisville and BYU have been discussed as going to the B12, and UCONN has been discussed for the ACC. Wyoming being a continual power seems remote, which leaves Notre Dame and Boise State, and these 2 can be dealt with as At Large bids. Between the demise of Independent schools, and their recent tax troubles, maybe it is time to replace them with the Cotton Bowl. The Cotton Bowl is closer than the Fiesta to the actual B12 footprint, and it has the historic edge for the B12 schools.

.

Looking at this season say LSU wins out, OU beats oSu, Clemson wins ACC CCG, Oregon wins PAC CCG, and B1G CCG winner goes to the Rose Bowl. The following prevents a LSU vs Oregon or LSU vs Alabama rematch in the MNC. It also rewards the ACC for having a CCG, and penalizes the B12 for not having one. The B12 is now the minority for being the only major conference that does not have a CCG. If the only 2 losses Arkansas has are LSU #1 and Alabama #3, while Boise State lost at home to TCU # 19, I am putting them ahead of Boise State for ranking status.

Fiesta becomes catch all game every year, in this case B1G CCG loser vs best of BE / Houston / Boise State depending how it all falls out in the end. It goes back to being the bowl for the independents and lesser conference teams to have an outlet. The B1G has a 5 team logjam with many 2 loss teams and no 1 loss team. Long term I have a feeling this will become the exception than the rule and will bump the B1G with a second team in the Sugar, Cotton, or Orange bowls. It also sets a precedent for the B1G getting 3 teams in when the B1G is up. ;) Not sure the B12 should get 3 with no CCG, and the ACC / PAC are weighted at the top with just a few teams. PAC = USC + floater and ACC = FSU + VT + floater. The B1G and SEC have 4 – 6 at the top of their respective conferences.

I call bs. Bill Byrne went to A&M from Nebraska. “tu” is something only Aggies use. I would be surprised if he resorted to that childish action even if it was internal. And I guarantee he would act like an adult if he was addressing anyone outside A&M. This sounds like something made up by an Aggie.

While surfing the internet I saw a blog point to Dennis Dodd twitter account which pointed to a Dallas Morning News report that evidently obtained A&M’s expansion-related emails. The article is behind a paywall, but there is a link to this email from A&M AD Bill Byrne:

Which essentially confirms much dissatisfaction with LHN at the time (July 21):

1)ESPN was threatening Texas Tech to try and get them to sell their Longhorn game
2)Had thought the 3rd tier rights didn’t give the Longhorns as many rights as they did
3)Believed ESPN pushing hard to help Longhorn recruiting via LHN
4)”Will they [ESPN] cross market LHN on ESPN”? Yes, Bill they will; call your service provider today!

And of course this quote: “We need a backup plan. SEC? Pac-12? Bigger-10?”

I know it wouldn’t have been a move to 14 but wasn’t it aTm’s resistance in 2010 that kept the P16 from happening, before the LHN had actually been created? Sounds like all the reasons they stated for not wanting to go west would not have been as hard to swallow as had been represented.

Well, it did seem as if the original plan was for Texas A&M in the place of Utah and that’s why Scott was flying all around the Southwest with his invites.

A&M saying they’d only look at the SEC or Big 12 made it clear to Texas that they’d have to settle for the Big 12 if they wanted to remain in conference with A&M. And OU wasn’t anywhere near as gung-ho on the Pac-16 approach back then. It seemed as if Texas was pushing it, until they weren’t pushing it.

My only point is that once Utah completed the Pac-12, their future Pac-16 is entirely dependent on Texas + 3 as they’ve made clear with the OU happenings the past couple of months. I don’t think they would have any other move on the table.

Back when they were the Pac-10, their goal in the 90s was probably Texas-Texas A&M in a move to 12, not unlike the Big Ten’s goal of just adding Texas in this past expansion period (although I think they would have moved to 14 for sure since Nebraska would have indicated its interest).

The first thing A&M did was put in a call to the SEC while Texas was on the phone to the PAC10 back in the days immediately before the SWC went away and the B12 was formed. The old saying a leapord does not change its spots applies to schools. A&M wanted to derail Texas’ P16 express because it wanted to make sure the SEC was not an option before going west. A&M could not leave in 2010 because a lot of alumni did not want to break ties with Texas. A&M ran a very good campaign to whip up the hate and envy to made entry to the SEC pain free (i.e., not losing donors). A&M would have never go to the PAC if SEC was an option.

Mack:
Strange as it may seem, I’ve felt that UT helped the aTm to the SEC cause with the inflamatory things that became public involving the LHN. Things that could have been kept quiet, or put on the back burner for a year or two. A variation on good cop, bad cop? Perhaps the only way it could happen politically, and both get what they want.

Pac 10 was looking at Texas & Colorado in the 90s. About 10 years ago, a former conference official (don’t remember who, but I think it was the commissioner at the time) later said there was an offer made to those two. Apparently CU, after they were already in Big 12, decided they would prefer the Pac.

Loftin’s comments made it clear LHN had nothing to do with A&M to SEC. He decided summer 2010. He was just trying to get everything ready.

Regarding Pac and A&M-A&M is a fairly recent addition to AAU, 2001. And College Station is about as far culturally from Berkeley as possible. I never heard anything regarding any interest either way between the Pac and A&M until last year.

The financial breakdown would be interesting to look at. Missouri was always a break-even proposal, which is their problem and why they were always going to be #14 in either the B1G or the SEC.

If Texas A&M would be similar, I don’t think they would go for it. But if their market research concluded that B1G brand names + transplants to the Austin-Dallas corridor + Texas A&M could get the BTN on basic cable across the valuable part of Texas, different story.

Missouri & A&M don’t have academic problems, obviously. A&M would be a god-awful cultural fit, but they’d also get stomped so fans probably wouldn’t howl that much about it.

The only problem is that I don’t see any punishment that will be worse than what PSU is getting from the media coverage. I suppose they’ll get probation if found guilty. The loss of scholarships or a bowl ban doesn’t really seem appropriate but those are their main tools.

If the NCAA’s goal is to tell university administrations, “Hey, you cover up criminal acts in your precious athletic department, you will regret what happens to your precious athletic department,” they will nuke Penn State. And that’s the goal I’m getting from reading this letter. The involvement of the AD and quite possibly the PSU President raise this to SMU levels of “we make the rules.”

Penn State could well get USC’s Death Penalty Lite. Miami (FL) is likely going to get the Death Penalty proper.

I think a better first step for the NCAA would be to put in rules mandating minimum punishments for players and coaches that get in trouble with the law. Selling a jersey may cost you 4 games but a felony is OK? Lying to the NCAA is deal breaker, but a crime is up to the school to punish?

If breaking the law isn’t punishable for players and coaches, it shouldn’t be for schools either.

Its all public relations. Unless more comes out, this is about as big a stretch of NCAA rules as possible. And the idea of Penn St. providing a written response to deep, serious questions that may have legal ramifications to the university in 30 days is ludicrous. I wonder how often, if ever, the President of the NCAA writes violation letters?

And where is the NCAA’s comparable letter to the Citadel? Obviously, there isn’t one because the Citadel is not on the front pages.

I could see ND cutting a really favorable deal with the Fiesta Bowl or Orange Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl would probably offer them an automatic pickup if they were in the top 16 (give or take) if it lost the Big 12 champion to Cotton.

I think the bowls may be more apt to favor a deal with a conference than with ND as they would all but be guaranteed a good team every year. If ND was not available in a given year they would likely be left with a less favorable plan B. I could be wrong on that though.

For those wondering about what the bowl system would look like without the BCS (except for #1vs#2) I suggest you read this article by Andy Staples. He tries to envision how the tie ins would work out and as I and some others suggested, it shows that the ACC and Big East would both be boxed out of the Big Bowls.

(and to address zeek’s point he has the Fiesta Bowl working out a tie in with Notre Dame).

He actually noted that the SEC #3 might get an Orange Bowl tie in before the ACC champ. Personally I doubt it, but the more I think about it the more logical it sounds.

Of course I think the Orange would push hard for the SEC #2 to be paired with the Big 10 #2. The Orange Bowl is more prestigious than the Cotton Bowl and I doubt the SEC and Big XII want both their #1’s and #2’s playing each other every year.

If the Sugar Bowl could get the Big XII tie in (and to be honest I’m not sure they can, since it would take huge amount of money for the Big XII to give their champ’s opponent permanent home field advantage when they have the Fiesta and Cotton Bowls as options) then my guess would be this:

Since Notre Dame will not want to be tied to anyone’s #3 since they still view themselves as perennial title contenders (even though they aren’t even close) and the ACC will feel the same way about being stuck with a number 3 and will want to position themselves to grab ND if they ever join a conference, I’m guessing they will push hard to be paired together, preferably at the Cotton Bowl (easily the best bowl game left). The question is if Jerry is willing to go for it. The ACC can’t even get their fans to go to Florida, so it’s doubtful they can sell tickets to Dallas, but I’m guessing Jerry’s ego will convince him to take a financial hit to grab the Irish and a conference champ.

After these five I expect things to stay pretty similar to what you have above, except that the ACC #2 will take one of the slots in the Gator Bowl (doubt the SEC and Big 10 want four games against each other in Florida).

He actually noted that the SEC #3 might get an Orange Bowl tie in before the ACC champ. Personally I doubt it, but the more I think about it the more logical it sounds.

He mentioned it, but then he assigned that team to the Capitol One. I took that to mean he decided on the ACC champ over the SEC #3. I also doubt it because the Orange would be passing on the chance at some really good FSU and Miami teams. I’d rather have 12-1 Clemson than 10-2 AR or 9-3 SC this year.

Of course I think the Orange would push hard for the SEC #2 to be paired with the Big 10 #2. The Orange Bowl is more prestigious than the Cotton Bowl and I doubt the SEC and Big XII want both their #1′s and #2′s playing each other every year.

His first mistake, to me, is thinking that any of the other big bowls want a double tie-in. How many times has the Rose gotten stuck with a subpar champ from one of the two conferences? I think the Sugar wants SEC #1 versus an at large so they can make a good pairing. If everyone locks in 2 teams, nobody gets ND or a BCS buster having a great year. That seems unlikely to me.

If the SEC and B12 did pair up, I’m guessing it would be this:
Sugar SEC #1/B12 #2
Cotton B12 #1/SEC #2

Both would want the home field and both games would pay a lot. If that happened, the Orange would angle for ACC #1/B10 #2. That would leave the Fiesta with P12 #2/at large I think. This would be where ND, the BE and the MWC/CUSA send a top team. The B10 #2 could swap with the at large I suppose, but I don’t think the B10 wants to lead off with 2 western bowls.

They could do a pseudo at large. The Sugar, Orange, Cotton and Fiesta could all sign a group contract with multiple conferences that lets the bowls pick their opponents in a rotating draft order much like they do now. At worst they could lock in a rotation so they don’t always get the same pairings.

“If the Sugar Bowl could get the Big XII tie in (and to be honest I’m not sure they can, since it would take huge amount of money for the Big XII to give their champ’s opponent permanent home field advantage when they have the Fiesta and Cotton Bowls as options) then my guess would be this:”

Geographically New Orleans is as close to Texas and Oklahoma as it is to most of the SEC. It’s definitely closer to the Big XII schools than Arizona. Presumably if they set up a long term agreement, the Big XII would get the same # of tickets as the SEC, with a certain number reserved for locals who will likely lean to the SEC. The Cotton Bowl generally seems to be 50/50 between the 2 conferences.

If the SEC wants to keep the Sugar tie in and wants the Big XII to be the opponent, they can probably get some national sponsors to make a good offer. Maybe the Big XII would prefer another arrangement, but I don’t think they’d worry to much about a home field advantage.

I think the Sugar Bowl would go hard after the Big 12’s Champion. Just to match the Rose Bowl with its match up.

That’s way more important under a free-for-all system if the BCS only controls 1v2, since it’s going to be “every bowl for himself” unlike the current system which is much more like a cartel for the Big 4 bowls.

“If the Sugar Bowl could get the Big XII tie in (and to be honest I’m not sure they can, since it would take huge amount of money for the Big XII to give their champ’s opponent permanent home field advantage when they have the Fiesta and Cotton Bowls as options) then my guess would be this:”

Geographically New Orleans is as close to Texas and Oklahoma as it is to most of the SEC. It’s definitely closer to the Big XII schools than Arizona. Presumably if they set up a long term agreement, the Big XII would get the same # of tickets as the SEC, with a certain number reserved for locals who will likely lean to the SEC. The Cotton Bowl generally seems to be 50/50 between the 2 conferences.

The B12 has home field in AZ because they are closer to it than their opponent. I’d assume the B12 would really prefer to switch to the Cotton now that it’s at Jerryworld, and then you’d really see the home advantage. The problem is the locals. In New Orleans, they will always preferentially scalp their tickets to the SEC team so the crowd will always favor the SEC. The opposite would be true in Dallas I would think. What you have to remember is that the Cotton right now pairs the SEC West versus the B12 (generally the TX or OK schools) so all the schools are pretty close. The SEC would normally have a clear proximity advantage in New Orleans.

If the SEC wants to keep the Sugar tie in and wants the Big XII to be the opponent, they can probably get some national sponsors to make a good offer. Maybe the Big XII would prefer another arrangement, but I don’t think they’d worry to much about a home field advantage.

I’m pretty sure the B12 would want something else, and home field would definitely be part of the reason. Why ship money to LA every year when it can come to TX?

I doubt the SEC wants to link itself playing the champ of another conference, especially one it just raided. They’re going to want their champ vs. a top team the bowl can pick. I think they would veto being tied in.

I don’t think the old system will work, where Bowls grab schools after the season is over (or more accurately, with a month left in the season). There aren’t the number of independents, and there are many more bowls all bidding for schools.

With the BCS still holding its own bowl, none of the other bowls has the possibility of hosting #1v#2 anyway, so I think they’ll end up negotiating agreements with conferences. The Rose Bowl every year will be Big Ten#1 vs. Pac 12# 1, and if the SEC #1, Big 12#1, and ACC #1 all go to different bowls their best matchups will be Big Ten#2, SEC#2, or Big 12#2 most years (every now and then Notre Dame might be relevant). I think it’s in the best interests of 2 of those conferences to get together.

Personally, I would much prefer something that allows high-quality teams from the current non-AQ conferences (and the Big East, for that matter) to have access to the better bowls, rather than a setup where an undefeated Boise State is forced to go to the Outback Bowl (or whichever bowl game the shell of the Big East can get for its champion) or an undefeated, say, San Diego State goes to… the Liberty Bowl to face a 6-6 SEC team. I understand why the AQ leagues would want to do away with the AQ system because, if the bowl games were negotiated individually, the “Big Five” would still retain all their connections to the best bowl games.

Besides, the truth is that the non-AQ’s presence in the BCS bowls have NOT hurt those bowls and that, in many ways, they’ve helped them:
– Mindful of the fact that the game was the first Rose Bowl on ESPN instead of being on a broadcast network, TCU vs. Wisconsin got very good ratings. Also, the Rose Bowl just wants to have its tickets sold out, which they were, so as far as the Rose Bowl was concerned, it didn’t matter that TCU had far fewer fans there than Wisconsin.
– Boise State vs. TCU… this was a matchup that the Fiesta Bowl chose on its own, passing on the chance to take 10-2 Big Ten team Iowa.
– Utah vs. Alabama… Today, this game would be BCS vs. BCS anyway, but the game proved that non-AQ teams can drive strong ratings when paired with a power program and that ticket sales issues are exaggerated.
– Georgia vs. Hawaii… okay, this one was a dud for TV, but the game sold tickets, no?
– Oklahoma vs. Boise State… sold-out tickets. Bad TV ratings. The general public (but not Vegas) assumed it would be Oklahoma by 50 points, so few watched this excellent game. Any matchup like this one would get monster ratings today because the country has bought into the idea of a Boise State or TCU being highly capable of beating anybody.

The real problem for the BCS bowls haven’t been the non-AQ’s. Rather, they’ve been:
– Poor ticket sales for mediocre Big East teams with small fanbases, including an 11-2 Cincinnati team and an 8-4 UConn team. Even a very good 12-0 Cincinnati couldn’t sell tickets well.
– Declining ticket sales for Virginia Tech teams making four Orange Bowl trips in seven years (and possibly five in eight).
– Declining ticket sales for Oklahoma teams making repeated trips to the Fiesta Bowl
– Poor ticket sales for ACC teams with small fanbases (Wake Forest and Georgia Tech) making trips to the Orange Bowl
– Poor ticket sales for an 11-1 Stanford team going to the farthest bowl destination possible

Personally, I would much prefer something that allows high-quality teams from the current non-AQ conferences (and the Big East, for that matter) to have access to the better bowls, rather than a setup where an undefeated Boise State is forced to go to the Outback Bowl (or whichever bowl game the shell of the Big East can get for its champion) or an undefeated, say, San Diego State goes to… the Liberty Bowl to face a 6-6 SEC team.

And I want the exact opposite. If the non-AQs never taint an important bowl game again, it will be too soon. Since when does an undefeated JV team get to play for the Varisty championship?

I understand why the AQ leagues would want to do away with the AQ system because, if the bowl games were negotiated individually, the “Big Five” would still retain all their connections to the best bowl games.

They’d just be giving all the non-AQ whiner fans what they have asked for – an equal chance to get into the games. Perhaps they’ll awake to reality when all the important bowls tell them to take a hike.

Besides, the truth is that the non-AQ’s presence in the BCS bowls have NOT hurt those bowls and that, in many ways, they’ve helped them:

No, that isn’t the truth. Every BCS bowl CEO will tell you they were hurt by having those non-AQs.

– Mindful of the fact that the game was the first Rose Bowl on ESPN instead of being on a broadcast network, TCU vs. Wisconsin got very good ratings. Also, the Rose Bowl just wants to have its tickets sold out, which they were, so as far as the Rose Bowl was concerned, it didn’t matter that TCU had far fewer fans there than Wisconsin.

The switch to ESPN is a non factor. CFB fans are a fairly affluent demographic and over 90% of America gets ESPN. The ratings were decent, not very good.

You are so very, very wrong about what the Rose Bowl wants. They want B10/P12 and a sell out, and preferably a good game. They would have greatly preferred Stanford to TCU. Tradition matters to the Rose Bowl.

– Boise State vs. TCU… this was a matchup that the Fiesta Bowl chose on its own, passing on the chance to take 10-2 Big Ten team Iowa.

Yay, non-AQs. When you are really good, you attract more people than weak BE teams. That’s quite the accomplishment.

– Utah vs. Alabama… Today, this game would be BCS vs. BCS anyway, but the game proved that non-AQ teams can drive strong ratings when paired with a power program and that ticket sales issues are exaggerated.
– Georgia vs. Hawaii… okay, this one was a dud for TV, but the game sold tickets, no?

It looks to me like it pulled only decent ratings and did a bad job of selling tickets.

– Oklahoma vs. Boise State… sold-out tickets. Bad TV ratings. The general public (but not Vegas) assumed it would be Oklahoma by 50 points, so few watched this excellent game. Any matchup like this one would get monster ratings today because the country has bought into the idea of a Boise State or TCU being highly capable of beating anybody.

OU/Boise – 8.4

That game got mediocre ratings then and would now, too. An undefeated Boise will outdraw a BE champ. Big deal. Most of the country has not bought into Boise or TCU, just hard core fans. Bowls get ratings from casual viewers, and they don’t accept non-AQs as equal.

The real problem for the BCS bowls haven’t been the non-AQ’s. Rather, they’ve been:

The problem has been match-ups the bowls don’t want. One part of that is the forced inclusion of non-AQs. Another part is the BE. A third part is the ACC being down for a while. A fourth part is ND being down. A smaller part is the large number of repeat champions in the ACC and B12.

Nobody wants an OkSU on a 2 loss streak. NE is an easy pick for the Fiesta, even if it does annoy the B12. I’m just guessing that they take Houston as the best of a weak set of choices counting on their first BCS bid to really bring out the fans. The Sugar will snap up AR and then hold their nose while picking Stanford. The Orange will get stuck with the 3 loss BE champ.

What makes you so sure there won’t be an 11-1 Arkansas making the claim? A lot stranger things have happened. WKU only being down 7 at half to LSU was a lot bigger surprise than ISU upsetting OSU. An awful UAB team beating Southern Miss was a bigger surprise than Arkansas over LSU.

I’m pretty much with you on order, but there’s a lot of big games left that could impact my opinion.

Nobody wants an OkSU on a 2 loss streak. NE is an easy pick for the Fiesta, even if it does annoy the B12. I’m just guessing that they take Houston as the best of a weak set of choices counting on their first BCS bid to really bring out the fans. The Sugar will hold their nose while picking Stanford. The Orange will get stuck with the 3 loss BE champ.

Alabama wins out. LSU kills their next two, then narrowly loses to UGA in the SEC title game. Alabama rises to #1, LSU drops to #2. UGA goes to the Sugar Bowl. Yes, the SEC can get three BCS teams:

“No more than two teams from a conference may be selected, regardless of whether they are automatic qualifiers or at-large selections, unless two non-champions from the same conference are ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the final BCS Standings.”

After this weekend nothing looks inevitable. An Auburn win (and the game is in Auburn) would knock out the Tide, and an Arkansas win followed by a loss to the Bulldogs in the CCG by either Arkie or ‘Bama would also eliminate a rematch (I just can’t see the human polls letting two non-division champs play for the title.

The rumors are running strong in Columbus about Urban Meyer. The link goes to the blog that started it on twitter before posting. It’s a reasonably reliable blog as far as OSU insight goes. I believe it’s mostly rumor and wishful thinking, but it is being reported.

“Before we dive into what we do know, it’s important to point out what we’re not saying:

. Urban Meyer was in Columbus yesterday or anytime in the last couple of weeks.
. There is a contract in place between Urban Meyer and Ohio State.

Regardless of what you may have heard, we’ve said nothing about Meyer visiting Columbus nor have we indicated that a contract has been signed between Meyer and Ohio State.

Now, here’s what we do know based off of multiple sources that have a proven track record with delivering timely information to us:

. There has long been mutual interest between Ohio State and Urban Meyer.
. Urban has agreed in principle to take the position next year. Numbers have been exchanged and agreed upon via back-channel talks.
. Ohio State and Meyer are waiting for the NCAA to deliver its verdict, after which time, the announcement of Meyer as the new head coach will take place.
. Both parties are on the same page with regards to what they expect to hear from the NCAA. Both parties believe the NCAA’s punishment will not be an obstacle to Meyer taking the job.
. While early December has been floated, the university is hoping to hear back from the NCAA later this month.
. LSU offensive coordinator Greg Studrawa, a Fostoria native who coached with Meyer at Bowling Green, is very much in play to become a member of Meyer’s staff at Ohio State.”

Seems like a good move from tOSU’s perspective. Despite the behavior of his players at UF, Meyer still has a straight-arrow public image, and they could use a bit of that. Not as much as the folks in Happy Valley, but a bit. I don’t know if I would do it if I was Meyer, though. The ESPN gig is super sweet – I’m going to guess somewhere in the six-figure range for basically watching and talking about football. I’d take that. He’s currently got two daughters playing college volleyball and a son I think in high school. Not a bad point in life to have a little free time. And the Buckeye job, with the NCAA restrictions, is going to be a headache – and a headache is the last thing Urban Meyer needs.

But player wants to play, I guess. And he can always go back to the loving embrace of the World Wide Leader.

The rumors say his salary would be around $5M per year. That’s a lot better than ESPN money. He is also a competitive guy with coaching in his blood. Now that he knows what his pain is, I don’t think that is as big an issue anymore. He can only watch so many VB games before he and his family go nuts.

Looking back over the past five or six years, I have to admit that the current BCS arrangement has been kind to the non-AQ crowd. It gives them/us a good opportunity for exposure, or at least to get into the national conversation, and the teams that have “busted” through have acquitted themselves pretty well (4-1 against AQ teams in BCS bowls – yeah, yeah 2007 Hawaii. I’ll see that and raise you a 2008 Utah). 2008 Boise might disagree with me, but I don’t have any complaints about that part of the deal.

National title game access is the real issue for me. Apart from non-AQs never having a shot, I’m sick of the arguments about which 1-loss team should be ranked second (an argument, it appears, that will be resuming shortly, thanks to ISU). This proposal of unhitching the title game from the bowls is the perfect opportunity to start a real playoff. Forget this plus-one compromise. I’m not going to reiterate the arguments because everyone’s heard them before (or is hearing them again at the top of the thread) and already made up their minds one way or the other. I will say, as someone who has been to some pretty swank bowl games lately, that, yes, they are a pretty great experience. But I’d rather have a home playoff game. I can sleep at home, eat where I want, tailgate in my regular spot with my regular crowd. And I can do it for a fraction of the cost of flying to a bowl game. And then, if I want a vacation, I can go wherever I please. Thanks, but I don’t need some bowl committee to sell me another trip to Phoenix. And if my team doesn’t do well enough to get a home game, well, I’ll get together with some friends somewhere and watch it on TV. Even cheaper, and still a blast. You have your traditions, I have mine. And I get that you’re big on the Rose Bowl, but let me ask you this, Big Ten fans: let’s say your team finishes second in the conference. You have a choice between going to the Capital One Bowl for the umpteenth time or hosting a first-round playoff game against an SEC, Pac-12, or Big 12 team. And if you win, you get to keep playing for a national title. Which one sounds like a better deal?

16 teams. Big five conference champs auto qualify. I’m undecided on the Big East at the moment. Top-ranked non-AQ champ gets in automatically. That leaves nine or ten at-large spots. Some kind of rule for Notre Dame to get in, probably. No limits on number of teams per conference.

First three rounds games are at the home field of the higher ranked team (or wherever that team wants the game – schools like Houston, were they to get in, might prefer Reliant Stadium for revenue purposes). Championship game is at a rotating site, basically like the Super Bowl. Playoffs run from two weeks after the conference championship games until the second week in January, basically the current bowl season. TV revenue is divided evenly among all playoff participants, gate gets shared, parking and concessions stay with the host team.

I think that pretty much has something for everyone. Greater access for the AQ conferences. Guaranteed access for the non-AQs. More money stays with the schools. The bowls won’t like it, but enriching the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce isn’t my concern.

Why waste all that time on teams that don’t deserve a chance? The current top 16 teams would include 5 teams with 2 losses. Why should this year’s B10 champ have the chance to get hot in December and win a NC after losing 2 games earlier?

If you didn’t win your conference, you’re out.
If you lost 2 games, you’re out.

That would reduce it to 5 teams this year:
LSU (or AL or AR if they win the SEC instead)
OU/OkSU winner
Clemson/VT winner
OR
UH

Clearly one of those doesn’t belong, so you’re down to 4 teams with any claim to the title.

I’m still against a playoff, but I could understand the argument if you proposed a 4 team playoff that follows my 2 rules above. If not enough teams qualify, then the highest ranked 2 loss conference champs (or independents) get in out of necessity.

-Some years that just isn’t feasible. Then who should the Buckeyes have played in 2007? Hawaii? (looks like Jake covered this as well)

@Jake:
“16 because it needs to be at least the size of the current BCS bowl field”

-Says who? There’s no reason to include the worst teams who currently squeeze into the BCS field when those teams can still play in the same or similar bowls. The bowls aren’t going to go away just because a small tournament is created.

There is no situation in which I believe that a team that fails to win their conference deserves to play for a NC.

“If you lost 2 games, you’re out.”

-Some years that just isn’t feasible. Then who should the Buckeyes have played in 2007? Hawaii? (looks like Jake covered this as well)

It’s always feasible. In 2007, 12-0 WAC champ Hawaii deserved a shot at the title more than 11-2 SEC champ LSU. Was HI better than LSU? No, but they were undefeated and that means they earned a shot when every other conference champ except OSU lost 2 games.

But in this case I was discussing the rules for a 4 team playoff, so it would have been OSU, HI, LSU and OU.

My point is that at most you can find 4 teams that might deserve a shot, so a 16 team playoff is ludicrous. I’m fine with the current 2 team playoff, but I’d prefer the old bowl system and let the polls vote.

“In 2007, 12-0 WAC champ Hawaii deserved a shot at the title more than 11-2 SEC champ LSU.”

—No quickly frankly they didn’t. The WAC conference slate is abysmal and that season was worse than most.

Yes, they did in my opinion. Not because they were better, but because they didn’t lose twice and won their conference. We thought we knew the WAC was crap that year, but you couldn’t know that its undefeated champ is bad for sure.

@ Jake
You could have bye weeks so the most deserving teams don’t have to play at odd times. You could have 1 to 4 games the 2nd week of December to narrow the field to 8 for January 1. Realistically, teams 13-16 have no business on the field for a national championship and if you try to let every conference in, you’re simply creating semi-bye weeks when the SEC champ plays the Sun Belt champ. Why do it and add extra nearly meaningless games for those teams?

I’m pro-playoff, but I’ve come to like 8-12 better than 16. Even when I used to think 16 was best, I didn’t think MAC and Sun Belt automatically deserved a slot. 8-12 also reduces the objections from those concerned about hurting the regular season (and that includes the most important decision makers-college presidents).

Welcome to the B10 fan’s world of expensive cross-country trips to big bowl games. They are a good fan experience, but they are much better for the players. They don’t pay anything and stay in 4 or 5 star resorts for the big bowls. Many of these players have never traveled before in their life, and suddenly they are getting a free trip to CA or FL for a week of being treated like a king and playing football. A playoff is a home game in December or a business trip road game. They have to practice at home and travel like it’s a regular road trip, so they never get the fun parts. That is not nearly the same.

And I get that you’re big on the Rose Bowl, but let me ask you this, Big Ten fans: let’s say your team finishes second in the conference. You have a choice between going to the Capital One Bowl for the umpteenth time or hosting a first-round playoff game against an SEC, Pac-12, or Big 12 team. And if you win, you get to keep playing for a national title. Which one sounds like a better deal?

To me this question is liking asking a ND fan about joining a conference. I’d take the Capitol 1 bowl 10 times out of 10 over a playoff. Have you ever spent 4 hours outside in December in Minneapolis or Madison or Lincoln or Iowa City or …?

Who wants to play in that weather? And that’s just the averages. Don’t forget the wind chill factor. What about if a snow storm or an ice storm hits? Should games like the Snow Bowl really decide the national champion?

Snow Bowl stats:
“The Buckeyes achieved 41 yards of offence over 58 plays; 16 yards were rushing, while 25 yards were passing (from three complete passes out of 18 pass attempts, a dreadful showing). They managed to get three first downs and 47 yards on kick returns, but also gave up two pass interceptions.

Michigan made 27 yards of offence, none of which was from passing. They ran 46 plays, had zero first downs, and gained 29 yards on kick returns2.

Ohio State punted the ball 21 times, while Michigan punted 24 times. Together, the ball travelled an incredible 1,408 yards from punts – almost a mile in the air.”

Back to the point, I see no need for a playoff. First, winning a NC isn’t that important in the grand scheme of things. Second, rarely do teams get left out of the NCG that have a real beef. Go undefeated and schedule a tough slate of teams. If you don’t do both of those things, you have no right to complain. The Tulanes of the world need to play stiffer competition while the Auburns need to play better OOC games. That resolves all the issues right there. In a year like this, I don’t feel bad for any 1 loss team that gets passed over. Don’t lose games if you want to be the champs.

Brian–A word of advice to you. If you ever come across former Michigan HC Lloyd Carr, don’t tell him that he a bowl game is better than a playoff or that weather would ever be a factor.

Back in the late summer of 2005, I participated in a two-day fantasy football charity event at the University of Michigan. The entire UM coaching staff was involved and the 80 or so campers were involved in drills, meetings, film sessions, etc. to raise money for cancer research.

Duing the Q&A session, Carr was asked about the playoffs v. bowls and he answered that he preferred a playoff. He proposed a 16-team setup with the higher ranked teams hosting the game at their home stadiums. One of the things he felt is that the BCS championship game had eclipsed all the bowls, including the major ones. He cited as his example the 2000 Orange Bowl between Michigan and Alabama as essentially being a sideshow, even though it had two of the premiere teams in the nation.

Carr went on to add he would have loved to have taken that team into a post season playoff. Although they had lost two games, he felt they were one of the best in the country by season’s end. He also savored the idea of hosting a SEC team at Michigan Stadium in mid-December where he felt the weather would be to his advantage. (On a side note, if you think playing a game in Michigan Stadium in early winter is going to deter people, keep in mind that the Big Chill Hockey game between UM and Michigan State last year had over 100,000 in attendance).

Actually, PlayoffPAC does an excellent job outlining which teams do have a beef by not being in the #1 v. #2 matchup that the BCS says is its main function. You can go to the link here summarizing the teams who were left on the outside looking in right here:

I’m approaching my 51st birthday and have been a college football fan most of my life with my first Michigan game being in September 1978–my freshman year in Ann Arbor. I’ve attended two Rose Bowls, two Fiesta Bowls, four Insight Bowls and one Gator Bowl and watched countless others on television–including in the 1970s when New Year’s Day was synonymous with college football. That said, I’m still very much in favor of a playoff putting together the top teams in competion on the field to settle the national championship.

Brian–A word of advice to you. If you ever come across former Michigan HC Lloyd Carr, don’t tell him that he a bowl game is better than a playoff or that weather would ever be a factor.

I’d be happy to discuss it with him. I respect his opinion but it doesn’t mean he is correct.

During the Q&A session, Carr was asked about the playoffs v. bowls and he answered that he preferred a playoff. He proposed a 16-team setup with the higher ranked teams hosting the game at their home stadiums.

I’m not surprised a B10 coach would like a chance to make AL or USC come play outdoors up north in December. That doesn’t mean I agree that it is the right way to do it. There have been plenty of crappy NFL games (and cancelled games) in December because of the weather and bad turf. CFB has less money and more fans to worry about, not to mention a lot of smaller towns versus the major cities of the NFL.

One of the things he felt is that the BCS championship game had eclipsed all the bowls, including the major ones.

It has. It’s unavoidable. It’s the same thing that a playoff would do to the regular season.

He cited as his example the 2000 Orange Bowl between Michigan and Alabama as essentially being a sideshow, even though it had two of the premiere teams in the nation.

That game would have been important under the old bowl system. I’m just saying.

Carr went on to add he would have loved to have taken that team into a post season playoff. Although they had lost two games, he felt they were one of the best in the country by season’s end.

Lots of coaches say that. The NC should be the best team all year, though, not just in December. Good teams getting hot late shouldn’t win the title.

He also savored the idea of hosting a SEC team at Michigan Stadium in mid-December where he felt the weather would be to his advantage. (On a side note, if you think playing a game in Michigan Stadium in early winter is going to deter people, keep in mind that the Big Chill Hockey game between UM and Michigan State last year had over 100,000 in attendance).

Just like I said above, he wants an advantage. Home field shouldn’t determine who is the NC either. I wouldn’t want a B10 team to have to play a day game in Miami in early September as a playoff game either.

Actually, PlayoffPAC does an excellent job outlining which teams do have a beef by not being in the #1 v. #2 matchup that the BCS says is its main function. You can go to the link here summarizing the teams who were left on the outside looking in right here:

Nobody has a real beef. I’m certainly not going to consider a lobbying group as a neutral source for information any more than I listen to a zealot like Wetzel.

Schedule hard and win your games, then I’ll listen to you complain. Until then, be quiet.

I’m approaching my 51st birthday and have been a college football fan most of my life with my first Michigan game being in September 1978–my freshman year in Ann Arbor. I’ve attended two Rose Bowls, two Fiesta Bowls, four Insight Bowls and one Gator Bowl and watched countless others on television–including in the 1970s when New Year’s Day was synonymous with college football. That said, I’m still very much in favor of a playoff putting together the top teams in competion on the field to settle the national championship.

And I respectfully disagree. I think a playoff is all about the fans while the bowl system is all about the players. The players are more important to me than the whining of the fans.

When you put in a playoff and kill the bowl system, you can’t ever undo that. I’ll stop watching or following CFB if a true playoff is ever installed, and I wouldn’t ever donate to my alma mater’s AD either. A playoff would signal the end of CFB and the beginning of semi-pro football. I think it might also be more likely to draw scrutiny from the government about why college athletics get tax exempt status.

The way to do a playoff system is to have an 8-team playoff. Each of the 6 major conferences (which will soon encompass 74 schools) gets a berth. The remaining 2 berths go to the 2 best teams from the remaining conferences (MAC, C-USA/MWC, Sunbelt, WAC). Independents are out of luck (Find a conference ND or be gone!). Seeding of the playoff can be based upon whatever you like: conference strength, BCS ranking-like system, whatever.

This system pretty much continues today’s win-or-out system, filters out non-conference champs, makes the CCG of big conferences a de-facto 1st-round playoff game, provides something of a break for the two top seeds in the 1st round, and ensures that teh issue will be settled on the field. What more could one want?

1) I don’t plan on doing much bowl traveling. I hit the Fiesta and the Rose because it was the first time, but I doubt I’d go back. If we somehow make the Sugar or Orange, I might do those, but just the once. I take vacations when and where I want to, not based on a bowl game. I’ll take playoff games, thanks. The players can settle for being treated like kings the other 51 weeks of the year.

2) Fans in Green Bay don’t seem to have a problem with the weather in December. And seriously, Minnesota? We’re talking about football.

3) If you don’t think the NC is that important, why do you care if the weather is a factor? Anyway, as I pointed out, the title game would be at a neutral, rotating site. Usually somewhere down south, like Arlington or New Orleans.

1. For being treated like kings all year, they sure work hard and get next to no vacation. They work weekends and get only a few days for the holidays. Combining a week of vacation with a week of work doesn’t seem unreasonable.

2. I didn’t say home fans wouldn’t attend. I said it’s miserable weather as opposed to being in CA or FL in January. That’s one reason why I prefer bowls.

3. The point of a playoff, as I’ve been told, is to “fairly” determine the best team (since the BCS is unfair). Nobody should get a weather advantage if you really want to know who is best.

We lost last year to Wisconsin which meant our final record was 11-1 and instead of going to the national championship, we went to the Sugar Bowl and had no chance at the national championship. I absolutely love that our game against Wisconsin meant that much. I love that every week, we knew we had to take of business or we were out of it. I love that there were 10 other teams I wanted to watch throughout the regular season hoping they would lose to get us back in.

At the end of the day, I always want another chance at the national championship sure (even if we are 12th in the Big Ten). Unless we actually win it all though, I’d have rather been in a bowl game. For everyone else, I like seeing the stories and importance on the regular season. I also love how the season doesn’t end with 1 winner and 119 losers. College football has much less emphasis on the national championship than any other sport and I think that is great.

And with 70 teams getting weeks of extra practice and thousands of poor young men getting free trips across the country for a few days of fun and a football game. Heaven forbid 35 teams end on a postseason win instead of just 1.

Has anyone ever proposed that the teams that don’t get to a bowl be allowed an extra 5 or 10 extra days spring/fall practice the comming year? It sure seems those that least need of a bit of extra work are the ones that are allowed it.

The historic separation was between a bunch of northeastern and midwestern teams. Now it is a forced pseudo separation since so many players and managers move back and forth. They keep the DH in the AL only since the union won’t let them drop it and the NL won’t add it, but otherwise it’s all the same.

The west had no teams until Giants and Dodgers were ripped out of NY in 1958. TX didn’t have a team until 1961, and didn’t have 2 until 1972. Realignment in CFB has changed much more longstanding alignments.

I think the numbers show that interleague play has been good for MLB. Why wouldn’t you want series like Mets/Yankees and Cubs/White Sox regularly? Not every team has a good partner, sure, but so what? Most games are matchups that people don’t really care about.

It’s not different than the B10 locking IA/PU since everybody else has a natural rival.

I agree that MLB’s divisions are bad. I understand the desire to get certain teams to play each other more, but it is bad competitively. Reducing travel is a reasonable goal, though, for financial and physical reasons.

The only good thing from my standpoint is that someday maybe the Reds and Astros could both be in the world series. Of course, with baseball’s financial system, that’s about as likely as a Baylor-Duke game for the national championship in football (not so far-fetched in basketball).

Just makes no sense for a traditional laden sport to move the Astros. But it was the path of least resistance to get the 15 team leagues. I like interleague play as long as it isn’t overdone. As I said in the last thread-Colorado or Arizona made much more sense.

I hate the idea that the NCG could end up being two teams from the same conference who’ve already played each other in a game where the road team won. I especially hate the idea that a conference championship team with the same record as Alabama could be passed over in favor of all-SEC NCG. The SEC’s five-year reign would not even be challenged. But sure enough, that’s where it looks like we’re headed.

If anything good comes of this, I hope it’s that there will be a ton more scrutiny on the SEC for the way its teams hold themselves to a different set of rules for signing recruits. With two teams in the NCG who are notorious for oversigning, grayshirting, and, in Bama’s case, dubious medical redshirts, this would be the perfect opportunity for journalists and the general public to pause and ask whether it’s more than mere coincidence that the two best teams don’t follow the same signing standards as, say, a 12-1 ACC champ, or a 12-1 Pac-12 champ, or an 11-1 Big 12 champ.

Frankly, I’m just sick of hearing about how the SEC is better than other leagues because it’s fans care more. Baloney. Fan passion, in and of itself, has very little to do with on-field performance. Passion accompanied by financial support of coaching staff, facilities, etc., however, can indirectly lead to on-field improvement, but the SEC isn’t any better at this kind of support than the Big Ten and power programs in other leagues. Rather, the league has performed so well in large part because of access to better recruits in its backyard. That is a huge advantage, granted, but I’m shocked by how much the general public and the media, in particular, glosses over the equally sizable advantage the SEC has when its teams can sign so many more recruits than it has scholarships available. I told two of my cousins, both huge FSU fans who wanted Florida State to get into the SEC, about the SEC’s oversigning practices, and neither had ever heard about it.

Perhaps an LSU-Alabama NCG would bring more of the SEC’s highly questionable signing practices to light and ultimately lead to rules that level the playing field. I’m not counting on that, though. Instead, I expect a lot of ESPN talking heads worshiping at the altar of Mike Slive and a naive public to blindly support an all-SEC title game, ignoring the merits of every other one-loss team because the SEC, after all, is the conference of the Bible Belt and therefore God’s chosen conference. Right?

I’m assuming that the at-large selection order, including the pick for the Big East champion, would be Sugar, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange. If not, then it must be Fiesta, Sugar, Sugar, Orange, in which case the bowl lineup would undoubtedly go…

In either case, the Rose and Fiesta are the only compelling games. Alabama vs. LSU is something we’ve already seen. The Orange Bowl would feature a 12-1 or 11-2 Clemson team facing only the seventh most-challenging opponent on its schedule for the year (VT, VT, GT, FSU, Auburn, & S. Carolina are all tougher opponents). The Sugar Bowl would feature either the ACC runner-up or the Big Ten Legends division runner-up against this year’s Hawaii, rather this year’s TCU/Boise/Utah.

Remember 2006 guys. Michigan was till #2 after their loss to OSU, but after that the voters did everything in the power to make sure we didn’t get a rematch. They moved USC past Michigan first and then when the Trojans lost, they moved Florida past.

The only way I think we get a rematch is if Arkansas beats LSU and the rest win out. Then we have the issue of people not being united on the #1 team and thus I could see 2 SEC teams in.

If you are correct about LSU vs BAMA, why would the Sugar not push to take Arkansas? The talk has already been there to break the 2 team conference issue. I think this is why they put BAMA in the Sugar instead, but the issue is still out there. I would like to see the Ducks play the B1G CCG winner tho!

Actually, it is technically possible. In the unlikely event that LSU and Alabama finish 1 and 2 but neither wins the SEC championship (maybe Georgia pull an upset in the CCG) then LSU and Alabama would play in the NC and Georgia would go to the Sugar Bowl.

If LSU wins they are in, but the other side will favor a team I do not think should be given the shot. That said, here is who I would like to see from the 1 loss set.

#1 ACC CCG winner (if neither add another loss by then)
LSU already beat Oregon and Alabama, so play a different team
#2 PAC CCG winner (if it is the Ducks, and they only have 1 loss)
rematch game, so it will probably not happen, but I think the score will be closer this time

I have a feeling tho OU will beat oSu and the BCS will put them #2. I would be unhappy because they would be rewarding a team that lost @ home to a terrible Texas Tech team AND did not have to play a CCG. If not having a CCG was the issue with the B1G in the past, then why should the B12 get the free pass now. Yeah it might be a bit of B1G homerism, but if the ACC / B1G / PAC / SEC have to play a CCG, then the B12 should be penalized for not having to play one.

As for Boise State or Houston getting a shot I say no way for 2 reasons:

a) They have good records because they do not play anybody
b) They have offense, but no defense. Ohio State got 3 TD’s on the SEC in the MNC game, and that is the most any team has put up on the SEC in the MNC. LSU has a defense, and playing Boise State / Houston would be over after the first quarter. At least the Auburn vs Oregon game was competitive till the end.

Yes, folks will say they beat Georgia in Georgia’s back yard. BSU scored 5 TD’s to Georgia’s 3 TD’s but only gained 390 yards to Georgia’s 373 yards. That is only 17 yards difference between the 2. Like Va Tech the year before, Georgia started off terrible for the first 2 games before getting their act together. The Hokies dropped the next week to JAMES MADISON @ Blacksburg before beating #23 NC State, #21 Miami, and #20 Florida State for a trip to the Orange Bowl. Georgia dropped a squeaker the following week to South Carolina before going on a run that should have them winning the SEC east. Boise State offense by game:

I don’t think not having to play a CCG ever hurt the Big Ten. Having one did hurt the Big 12 a lot though (and would have even more times with current rules).Being someone who wishes there were no CCG, I don’t want hurt Oklahoma for playing a traditional schedule.

Beyond that though, I think the Big 12 is top to bottom the best conference Oklahoma’s accomplishments will be far better than Clemson’s if both win out..

Looks like Michigan State will clinch the Legends division and Michigan will go to 9-2. Michigan at 10-2 should be BCS eligible if things play out the right way…; of course, Ohio State will have something to say about that…

Yep. Looks like MSU/WI in a rematch and MI needing to beat OSU for an at large spot. I think it would be better for the B10 to not get that second spot, though. This was also true if NE would get that second spot.

The match-up will be against OU, OkSU or AL most likely. MI can’t stop the B12 passing offenses and I don’t think they can move against AL. Rather than another bad bowl loss, the B10 can set up better matchups in the other bowls:

Michigan actually looks legitimate. They dropped 45 on Nebraska and could score with a Big 12 opponent. Alabama would kill Robinson but Hoke has made that team a hell of a lot better.

Illinois had Wisconsin cornered (14-0 with winds preventing passing) but Zooked it up and wasn’t good enough to hold on. Wisconsin finished the game by outscoring them 28-3. Not a typo. Zook should be fired tomorrow.

I disagree on your assessment that Michigan could not stop a Big 12 passing offense. The UM secondary is very good and with the emergence of Blake Countess at CB, they actually have some quality depth in the secondary. The defensive line has been dominating the last two games and the linebackers have improved from being an absolutely liability last season. I also like the odds with Mattison at DC and with almost a month to prepare.

The only teams I could see being a major mismatch for Michigan right now would be Alabama, LSU and Oregon. I like UM’s chances against all the others–the two Oklahoma teams, anyone from the ACC and of course, the Big East entry. I could also see UM doing well against Houston or Boise State if that sort of matchup were to take place.

I’ve attended two Fiesta Bowl games that featured Oklahoma–OU lost both of them in games where there was a perceived mismatch. One was Boise State and the other West Virginia. If Michigan gets a shotat the Sooners in the Desert in early January, I could certainly seem them winning that game.

Notre Dame was early in the season and Countess hadn’t emerged out of the depth chart yet when Michigan played ND. Woolfolk was also dinged up and now he’s playing both safety and cornerback depending on the defensive alignment.

I’d also add that the two freshmen linebackers who are now doing so well–Ryan and Morgan–weren’t part of that defense against ND (Morgan was dinged up and Ryan was brand new to his position). These guys are no longer “freshmen” in the sense that they’ve both had some very solid experience.

You might need to rethink your premise because the other thing that’s happened is that Mattison and the defense can now execute the game plans much better than early in the season. As I said earlier–and it bears repeating–I think they could do very well with lengthy prepartion against a pass oriented team like Oklahoma.

They could get 11-2 or 10-3 Clemson with 1 or 2 losses in their last 3 games. On the other hand, they could get VT yet again. To top it off, there’s a decent chance they get 7-5 UL as the opponent. At best they get 9-3 WV or 13-0 UH.

I think I’d like to be the Orange Bowl right now because I could make a salary in the mid- to high-six figures for running a one-time event, but that’s a different issue. ;-)

I see what you’re saying, though, Brian. I’m amazed at Clemson’s complete breakdown today. Their 3-game run against Auburn, FSU, and Virginia Tech cannot be ignored, but this NC State game is still a huge black mark on their overall body of work. The ACC does not need games like this one. As a conference, it will always take more heat than the Big Ten, SEC, or really anyone besides the Big East when games like this one happen. I’m happy for the local fans of NC State here and all, but sheesh…

Duffman, there’s no shame in squeezing by UNC, in spite of their record. UNC has a lot of NFL talent on the team. Miami and USF are both 5-5, and both have decent wins over quality non-conference opponents (Ohio State and Notre Dame, respectively). In other words, they’re evenly matched.

Notes:
1. MSU or PSU would just swap with WI if they win. No B10 CCG loser can be an at large.
2. You hate to have a team on a losing streak, but OkSU fans will be excited for their first BCS game
3. The Fiesta takes MI for their return to a BCS bowl and the name brand
4. The Sugar takes 13-0 UH over 7-5 UL
5. The Orange considers just dissolving rather than hosting their game

Division winner:
UGA, because they won at 2-8 Ole Miss while SC lost at 10-1 AR.

The division record should determine the division winner, not the strength of the crossover schedule. SC should be the winner of the East. Look at UF’s crossover schedule (LSU, AL, AU) compared to SC and UGA. If UF had beaten UGA, for example, the teams would have been tied in division but UF would out due to their crossover games against 2 of the best teams in the country.

The West
The three best teams in the conference are in this division. That means the CCG will be #1 vs #4 at best. On the other hand, the teams all had their shots at each other already. It will either end deadlocked at 1-1 and go to the BCS rankings, or it will be 2-0, 1-1 and 0-2 with LSU as a clear winner. LSU and AL can’t play a rematch for the SEC title because LSU has proven they are better, but they could rematch for the BCS title.

My Point
These examples show the downside to having divisions with crossover games. There are advantages, of course, but people tend to ignore the downsides when thinking about conference expansion.

I’d prefer it if conferences couldn’t have divisions, but were allowed 1 extra post season game. This would be a CCG if there is a tie for first or a game for BCS at large eligibility if there is an outright winner. If there is a tie for the lead, use tiebreakers to get it down to 2 teams and then play the CCG. No rematches would be allowed. I know this would require NCAA rule changes, but it would make sure there is a CCG (or runner up game) every year for TV but the regular season winner would always move on. That prevents a rematch ending with a split but the second game means more.

Applied to this year’s SEC, if LSU won outright they move on while AL and AR play for #2 status and BCS at large eligibility. The lesser teams in the East don’t get the ego stroke of a division championship and a shot at an upset to make the BCS.

The other advantage to me is that conferences wouldn’t want to get too big. It would stop things like the MWC/CUSA marriage and the BE spreading to the Rockies.

The BCS also needs to be changed to prevent any rematches and any conference runners up from being in the NCG. If #1 already beat #2, then they should play #3 instead.

I also think that the Big East could have used such a program to lure Notre Dame and BYU into the fold with 5-6 game conference schedules–all within the division. If the cross-over games do not count–it could be deemed OK to not play them.

Not that there was a great likelihood of that happening. And it is moot now.

With division records you are getting a dangerously small sample size. Georgia dominated the turnovers and the yardage vs. SC and dominating the turnovers meant a 3 point loss. S. Carolina didn’t get in partly because they lost to Auburn at home while UGA won 45-7.

UGA did have Ole MIss instead of Arkansas, but S Carolina was a team that squeaked by and the 8 game schedule resulted in the better team winning the east, instead of the team that had a better single day in September.

Also, it’s important to mention this rule for the BCS: only way to get more than 2 teams into the BCS is if both #1 and #2 are non-league champions. That’s in play with the SEC having 3 teams ranked so high.

UVA takes a 1 point lead with just over 1:00 left. Then FSU wastes a bunch of time throwing a 4 yard pass not to the sidelines and has to call TO after another pass in the middle of the field. On 4th down, UVA gets called for a facemask penalty while sacking EJ Manuel. With no TOs left, FSU then throws another in bounds pass and the clock expires before they can line up to kick the game winning FG. UVA is already up the tunnel when the officials bring them back because the play is under review. The receiver was clearly in bounds, so the only thing that helps FSU is if they reverse the call and say it was incomplete. After about 5 minutes of review, the catch is overturned so FSU gets a stopped clock for a 48 yard FG attempt. Then UVA gets called for calling fake signals for a 5 yard penalty. After all that…

WIDE LEFT

FSU’s kicker misses and only 3 seconds are left. Ball game. UVA wins at FSU for the first time ever, 14-13.

The team that deserves to be ranked #2 is Alabama. They easily defeated one of the strongest Big 10 teams in non-conference and have done very well in perhaps the top division in football (the Big 12 is deeper this year). They played the clear #1 in the nation to a draw over 60 minutes, falling in overtime. That is clearly the ‘best loss’ in the country this year.

Now, that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t agree with voting for a different school to face LSU in a bowl game. I would enjoy a rematch (I like defense), but I’m also curious about seeing a different school.

So I would understand if a voter picked a school other than Alabama to face LSU. I wouldn’t agree with them if they claimed that school ‘deserved’ it. The only reason to vote for someone else is because you’d like to see a different game, so be honest about it.

After this cluster$&!$ of a Friday & Saturday, Wisconsin would have been happy to just have one one-possession loss on the road to a ranked team. That would put them right in the MNC argument on 11/20.

Granted, people were calling them done after the one-loss, but that was before Oregon, Oklahoma & Clemson got two and Ok.State decided it would be a good time to lose to Iowa State…

And this time, no one else deserves a chance. Stanford #4? Didn’t win their conference either and a meh loss to Oregon last week. Virginia Tech #5? Meh loss to Clemson and the ACC is as bad as the Big East or marginally better at best.

This year deserves a rematch. When 4 of the top 7 don’t win and leave just SEC West teams at the top, it has to happen.

If Boise were undefeated they would probably get a shot at the title game, but seeing as how the computers hate UH and the humans will see them as another Hawaii, I doubt Houston could even jump a 1 loss Boise St, let alone a 1 loss Stanford (particularly if the Cardinal ends up winning the PAC).

I think Les Miles and the LSU crowd are in favor of giving Houston, Stanford, VT, ore even Okie State* its shot versus a SEC rematch. However, it will never happen unless Alabama loses while LSU wins. The NC game is looking SEC West rematch at ths point. If both Alabama and LSU upset, that is likely to produce an Arkansas LSU rematch. LSU-Alabama rematch if both win out. LSU vs. one loss Stanford, VT, or Okie State if both Alabama and Arkansas end with two loses.
: * Didn’t the SEC originate “did not lose in regulation”?
: All of this would be moot if Alabama and Okie State had decent kickers.

Really? The Big East might have a team win the league with 7-5 record. In the best case scenario, the conference champ will enter the bowl games at 9-3. That league is far behind the Big Five.

Clemson had a horrible game yesterday, but that still does not make them a bad team. The ACC still has two teams with better overall records than any Big East team, and the worst record its conference champion can enter the bowls with is 10-3.

I see little definitive evidence why the Big Ten and Pac-12 are better leagues than the ACC. Oregon and Stanford’s records match Clemson and VT’s, but the depth in the ACC, in my opinion, is better. The Big Ten, outside of Michigan’s win over Notre Dame, lacks any big non-conference wins, whereas the ACC already has Clemson-over-Auburn and Miami-over-Ohio State, with potential for more in the FSU-Florida, GT-Georgia, and Clemson-South Carolina games.

(Sorry about the rant. I know the ACC didn’t do much to help its reputation yesterday, but I think it’s only fair to do some side-by-side comparisons with other leagues before blindly assuming the ACC is worse than all of the other leagues, much less saying it’s as bad as the Big East. When doing those comparisons, the assumptions don’t hold quite as much water.)

In case you just looked at the final scores, today made it seem pretty easy to go unbeaten in the SEC this year. They could upgrade by dumping their bottom 3rd and adding Southern Conference teams.

LSU and Arkansas destroyed Mississippi teams. Meanwhile:

Florida led Furman by 5 with 13 minutes left and won 54-32 with two late interception returns.
Alabama gave up more points and yardage to Georgia Southern than anyone they had played this season. They gave up as many points (21) as they had to any TWO teams other than Arkansas. Ga Southern was 10 points down late in the 3rd. Alabama tried to run up some poll points by passing for a TD with 44 seconds left to make it 45-21.
South Carolina was in a struggle with The Citadel with a 7 point lead until late in the 3rd. It was a 14 point game until South Carolina, like Alabama, went for poll points by passing for a TD with 45 seconds left to make the final 41-20.
Auburn beat OVC’s Samford 35-16 after leading only 21-16 with 12 minutes left. Like the others, they scored late, with 2 minutes left, for the final 19 point margin.

This is all the more reason NOT to have two teams from the same conference play a rematch. When they are playing FBS schools instead of other AQ schools, the current polls are just a popularity contest based on very limited data.

A victory by the Bulldogs in the SEC CG would likely rule that out. I just can’t envision the humans allowing two teams who not only didn’t win their conference but didn’t even win their division playing for the NC.

The rules may allow it, but the voters won’t. They didn’t let Georgia play a couple years ago precisely because they didn’t win their division and they elevated a 2 loss Florida over a 1 loss Michigan team.

Actually, with all the other nuttiness going on this weekend, OSU could still end up playing for the NC. Really, if Georgia pulls off an upset then the Cowboys are pretty much assured of playing for the title, particularly if Stanford doesn’t win the PAC-12 (which is still the safe bet).

Either that or so many teams lost that the rankings won’t change all that much. The polls generally do a terrible job of ranking after this much turmoil. Stanford barely beat USC, USC beat OR and OR crushed Stanford. OR’s loss may well hurt Stanford, too.

To emphasize this point, the only win Stanford has this year against a non-mediocre team is USC (and it took them 3 OTs + USC brainfarts to do so). The best of the rest they’ve beaten are 6-5, and that includes such illustrious teams as a UCLA team blown out by 3-8 Arizona, a Washington team that lost handily to 3-8 WSU, and a Cal team that beat 2-10 Colorado in OT.

Beating La Tech and UCLA is no big deal. I am betting a mid to low level ACC / B1G / B12 / SEC team could beat them as well. 3-8 Arizona and 6-4 Texas beat UCLA. 4-7 Washington State, 3-8 Oregon State, and a 4-7 San Jose State all were very close to beating UCLA.

OkSU had a huge lead on AR (0.16) in the rankings so I think they may stay just ahead of them since the computers love them. Normally a team drops about 0.1 when they lose a game, and with so many other losses they may not drop too much.

Fact of the matter is, the BCS is supposed to determine who the best team is. As things stand, that is most likely LSU. Alabama lost at home to that team. They aren’t the best team in the nation. It’s that simple in my mind; there should be no rematch. They would have some argument had they lost on the road, but they didn’t even defend their home turf.

I don’t know what will happen with the championship. I do know the other power conferences will be pissed if their shot at the NC was wiped simply because there is greater parity within their own conferences (whether or not that is due to being less elite than Bama/LSU is impossible to prove, one can only guess at this point). I mean, look at the Big 12. They dropped basically no games OOC, but they are so strong and there is so much parity that their top teams have dropped games. Why should they be kept from having a shot just because people think, without any sort of actual game-based proof, that Bama is the 2nd best team and therefore deserves another chance to beat the team they already lost to at home? Oklahoma and Okie State didn’t fall to LSU. They could still be better teams that had slip ups in an arguably stronger conference from top to bottom.

I think the idea of a rematch is pretty ridiculous. It would set the precedent that, even without losing to another conference, a team can be kept out of the NC by simply being in a tough conference. Yet, the SEC has been given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to playing in a tough conference, with losses often being excused and rankings inflated. The BCS has enough issues as is; I am not sure it will survive an all-SEC title game.

I still say the B12 OOC was the weakest of the power conferences. Because of that I projected Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were due upsets before their Bedlam game, and just such a thing has happened. I think the B12 defenses are suspect, and this has been proven out by time. 3 points separate Penn State from being in the MNC discussion, and tho they may not have an offense, they do appear to have a defense.

TAMU vs Arkansas : Like the Wizard of Oz, if TAMU only had a defense, they would probably be the top of the B12. The best they can hope for is a 7 win season if they can beat Texas at home on turkey day.

Baylor vs TCU : Yes they have RG III and yes they can put points on the board. This can not overcome their woeful defense. TAMU and oSu lit them up, and TCU probably should have beaten them which would have removed them from discussion early on. The fact that a 2-9 Kansas took them to overtime, and should have beaten them as well, just reinforces they should not be playing in a BCS bowl game.

THATS IT !!!! and yet the B12 is supposed to be the toughest conference ???? I would love for some B1G teams that actually play defense to put them in their place come bowl time!

I think the point is more that they won the games they should have among those games.

The other conferences have some brutal looking OOC losses; especially by bottom teams or mid-tier teams. Look no further than OOC losses by Iowa (Iowa State), Northwestern (Army), Michigan State (Notre Dame), as well as the expected ones by Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota.

If I only missed one team I ‘d be amazed. It was lots of guesswork about who moves how much in each direction. There were a lot of upsets above Baylor and those teams could easily shuffle and stay ahead of them.

a) Houston won again, still has not played anybody, not sure 4 place jump is warranted
b) USC, KSU, UGA, and Auburn won, but were not rewarded
c) Clemson fell 10, but OU only fell 6, and BU only jumped up 2
d) Wisconsin & MSU went up 5, but PSU only went up 2
e) PAC South is meaningless, but U$C is wrecking the PAC North

Houston @ Tulsa = even if Houston wins, no MNC for them, but BCS issues on line
Wyoming @ Boise State = no BCS for Boise State if Wyoming wins
Tennessee @ Kentucky = bowl invite for Tennessee on line (SEC -1 bowl invite)
Ole Miss @ Mississippi State = bowl invite for Miss St on line (SEC -1 bowl invite)

DEFCON 5 games :

All the other games

.

Right now only 7 SEC teams are bowl eligible, if Kentucky beats Tennessee, Mississippi beats Mississippi State, and Wake Forest beats Vanderbilt it keeps 3 SEC teams out of bowls. The 4 ACC vs SEC games have 1 bowl invite on the line, and all 4 games will have an influence on how the bowl matchup’s will shake out.

10-2 Michigan seems to be the best possibility for a 2nd bid for the Big Ten, especially with the two Oklahoma teams losing games guaranteeing either a 3 loss team in 2nd place or a 2 loss in a row team in 2nd place. I think the Big 12 only gets 1 bid in that case, and Michigan at 10-2 goes to the Fiesta or Sugar Bowls.

Michigan winning helps the B1G overall, and the game is at the Big House, but I am not going to dismiss Ohio State in a rivalry game. I feel the same way about the Iron Bowl. Michigan and Alabama SHOULD win, but I would not put a bet on the game.

JJ: Michigan’s beaten two currently ranked teams in Nebraska and Notre Dame, but the point is valid nonethless. It’s two road losses were at Michigan State and at Iowa.

The question is has Michigan done it impressively enough against the teams they’ve played, and then comparing it with the other teams in the two loss pool who might have gone to a BCS game if it wasn’t for the two teams per conference limit (ex. South Carolina).

Have I mentioned I hate every exciting game being interupted multiple times to show the BCS standings and speculate on potential impacts. I’d rather they just focusing on the teams being covered and saving the analysis for post game, or sports wrapup shows.

Agreed. In fact, I think the best way to fix the BCS is to just add the Cotton Bowl so you still have 10 teams in the BCS and have the seeding done for the bowls by BCS standings. That way the Rose Bowl gets actual Big Ten/Pac-12 champions as well as the Sugar and Fiesta etc.

Then do 1v2 after the bowl season is complete. Make Jan 1, the final date for bowls with the BCS Championship on Jan 9th or 10th or whenever.

Houston will be in position to sneak into the BCS Championship Game if further upsets involving the 1-loss teams were to occur (i.e. Auburn over Alabama, Clemson or Virginia over Virginia Tech, Notre Dame over Stanford, Oklahoma over Oklahoma State.)

I finally realized part of what bothers me about the SEC and their superiority claims.

For as tough as they claim their league is (and the top has been great), where are the upsets? The top teams have blown through the conference year after year, generally only losing to each other. All the other conferences manage to knock off top teams but the SEC doesn’t. Has there been a significant upset since the Tebow speech in 2008?

Kentucky beat LSU the year they won the MNC, I would call that an upset. When Ohio State was playing in the MNC games, the Buckeyes were pounding IU. If IU beat Ohio State in 2002 or 2006 I might consider that a similar upset. Kentucky came with a field goal of beating Auburn last year, and beat them @ Auburn the year before. Kentucky gave Alabama a scare in their run at a MNC. Ole Miss beat the Gators on their run the year before that. Kentucky beat LSU on their run the year before that. The year before that Florida squeaked by VU 25 – 19 on their first title run. In the Tigers 2003 run they squeaked by Mississippi 17 – 14 on that MNC run. In 1998 Tennessee beat up who they were supposed to, but they did have several close calls with ranked teams like Syracuse, Florida, and Arkansas.

UT won MNC for 1998, whipped the lesser schools
LSU won MNC for 2003, squeaked by OM 17-14
UF won MNC for 2006, squeaked by VU 25-19
LSU won MNC for 2007, lost to UK that fall
UF won MNC for 2008, lost to OM that fall
UA won MNC for 2009, whipped the lesser schools
AU won MNC for 2010, squeaked by UK and MSU

If LSU wins out, they will have whipped all the lesser schools which would mean the next SEC MNC should lose to the cellar dwellers of OM, UK, and VU.

Kentucky plays Florida and Tennessee EVERY year, and has not beaten EITHER since Ronald Reagan was in his first term in the White House. Vanderbilt last beat Tennessee in 2005, and took Florida to double overtime that same year. Prior to 91 expansion, Vanderbilt played Alabama every year instead of Florida. Vanderbilt = Indiana = Kentucky, as nobody would accuse any of them as being football schools, and all are better at basketball.

On the other point I think Alan and Bamatab both pointed out the “floating” nature of the SEC vs the “fixed” nature of other conferences. I think it was Alan who said that it is “the 6″ in the SEC and they change from year to year. The PAC has historically been U$C and a “floater”, the B1G has been Ohio State + Michigan + Penn State + a “floater”, and the B12 / SWC / Big 8 was really the Big 3.

LSU won MNC for 2007, lost to UK that fall
UF won MNC for 2008, lost to OM that fall

Again, close games are not upsets. Everybody wins some close games.

So the answer to my question is no, there hasn’t been an upset since Tebow’s speech in September of 2008. That’s almost 4 entire seasons.

On the other point I think Alan and Bamatab both pointed out the “floating” nature of the SEC vs the “fixed” nature of other conferences. I think it was Alan who said that it is “the 6″ in the SEC and they change from year to year.

But they really don’t change. Which of the 6 are at a peak changes, but it’s almost always the same 6. In the same way, the bottom 5 stays the same. One may pop up for a season here and there, but in general you know where all the teams will be in the standings.

The PAC has historically been U$C and a “floater”, the B1G has been Ohio State + Michigan + Penn State + a “floater”, and the B12 / SWC / Big 8 was really the Big 3.

Yes, because all these conferences have a middle class. The middle teams rise up every few years to challenge the top and they are always capable of an upset.

This year I agree with you. The middle is not as tough as usual and the bottom is abysmal. As I pointed out above, the Southern Conference teams were putting up more of a fight than the bottom 1/3 usually do.

LSU clearly deserves to be #1 in the country. I don’t know how good Alabama or Arkansas are. UGA may be as good as those two now. I know VU, TN, UK and Ole Miss are bad. I’m not impressed with Auburn or Florida. MS St.’s big win was a home win in OT vs. La Tech. Next biggest win is UK! They get credit because they didn’t lose badly to the teams above them in the SEC (until Arkansas). I suspect MS St. is really pretty bad with a defense that keeps them in most games. South Carolina is the worst 2 loss team in an AQ conference (although we’ll get a better idea when they play Clemson). But they have managed to win, so they get credit for that (see Penn St.). The SEC looks like it has 4 good teams (but its not clear how good #2,#3 and #4 are), 1 ok team, 2 mediocre teams, 1 probably bad, maybe mediocre and 4 really bad teams.

Alabama has played LSU, Penn St. and Arkansas. They rest of their schedule is TN, Vandy, Ole Miss, MS St., Florida, Kent St., North Texas, Georgia Southern. Except for the 3 tough games, the rest is unusually weak. Looks like a typical Notre Dame schedule that’s top heavy but weak at the bottom.

Arkansas has played at Alabama and lost badly. They beat Texas A&M in Arlington by 4 and South Carolina at home by 16. The’ve played 6 bad teams, crushing Missouri State, New Mexico and Tennessee at home, but only beat Troy 38-28 at home, Vandy by 3 and Ole Miss by 5 on the road. They also have a big wins at home vs. Miss. St. and Auburn and its hard to know how much credit to give them for those wins. Their results on the road don’t speak highly of their chances in Baton Rouge.

Brian, that is something that has always bothered me about the SEC lovefest. Everyone would argue that the SEC is so difficult top to bottom, yet at the same time assuming FLA or AL or LSU would go undefeated in the league. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

I think that one reason as to why you don’t see as many upsets in the SEC, and why you usually don’t see as many blowouts (although this year has been an exception to that rule), is that most years teams in the SEC play better defense than in other conferences (especially the Pac 12, Big 12, & ACC).

When you play good defense, you have a better chance at not losing games that you should win. When you rely on your offense to win games, you run the risk of your QB having an off-day and then you don’t have your defense to fall back on.

The one thing that stood out to me this weekend when watching the USC/Ore, Ok St/ISU, & OU/BU games is that none of them could stop the other team when they had to. Heck USC had to rely on Ore missing a 37 yrd FG and BU had to score with somewhere around 58 seconds left after allowing OU to march down the field in a 2 minute drill.

I believe that playing really good defense makes it a lot easier to sustain consistancy throughout the season than having to rely on a high powered offense. That is my theory at least.

Why should score matter? Nobody cares that Florida State, Oklahoma, Oregon, etc., lost by narrow margins. The fact of the matter is that they lost.

And scoring margins are not always indicative of anything. Syracuse beat West Virginia by 28. Are you buying that now??? The only pertinent thing is that Syracuse won. And even that is not pertinent to anyone other than fans of those schools. It’s just a win.

Not to hammer on Syracuse, but they also were down by 14 to USF and went for two fourth downs in the red zone. Had they gone for FGs, perhaps the margin decreases. But it doesn’t make USF worse or Syracuse better. The game is the game.

And then there are games like Louisville-UConn, where Lville scores a defensive TD in the final second.

The goal is to win, not win big. I don’t think teams should be rewarded for scoring margin victories or penalized for going all out for a win–even if that fails, resulting in a wider scoring margin.

Why should score matter? Statistical analysis has shown that it is a better predictor of future games than just using record alone. If you are attempting to determine the best teams, score should be a factor. And, as its been pointed out, human voters use margin of victory in their calculations.

Sagarin has explicitly said that his real rankings, which use scores, are better predictors of future games than his BCS rankings which cannot use scores. Accuracy is good. That’s why it matters.

On his USA Today pages he includes this:
“In ELO CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence,
which makes it very “politically correct”. However it is less accurate in its predictions for
upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters. PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR of future games.”

Any good model provides diminishing returns on margin of victory, but winning by 17 instead of 3 often does indicate something about the relative strength of the teams.

Sagarin overrates OOS w/l record as opposed to playing tough competition. Big XII did beat pretty much everyone there were suppose to beat in OOC, unlike every other conference who had more tough games but had more bad losses.

The Big XII may have 9 of 10 teams become bowl eligible. 90%!!! And the teams at the bottom have shown the ability to beat those at the top–Iowa St. over Okie St, Tech over Oklahoma. That is quite a gauntlet.

The B1G’s upside is 10/12, slightly less.

The SEC’s upside is the same, 10/12. Will take more than the B1G to get there.

frug, again I think the B12 is over rated. I call BS on the ratings. Looking at CUSA and the MWC you can see why Houston or Boise State should not be in a BCS bowl. I do have a problem with the SoS for the B12 averaging 5.5, and the B1G averaging 44.9. Either the B12 is too low, or the B1G is too high!

As I showed above, the BCS forcing Sagarin to use wins and losses skews the results. His more accurate method based on points would move up every B10 team by an average of 9 places, while B12 teams would drop 12 spots. For example, WI and MI would move from the 20s to the top 10, OSU would move up 15 places, IL 12, NW 16 and IN 24. By contrast, KSU would drop 13, Baylor 17, ISU 29, TT 30 and KS 45 places. That would have a major impact on SOS

Another main factor is that MN (104) and IN (147) are dead weight in the B10 but the B12 stops with KS at 65.

The third factor is the B12 playing a ninth conference game instead of a I-AA or MAC opponent.

I calculated based on teams in conference. The PAC still plays 3 OOC’s (rated by size) like the B12. [12 x 3 = 36 – 1 = 35 for PAC, 10 x 3 = 30 for B12] The difference is the PAC schedules 5 B1G schools while the B12 schedules 1 (the Iowa vs Iowa State game) and fills in with more mid / low level schools. With this in mind I am not cutting the B12 slack if the PAC can still schedule better with a ninth conference game as well.

On your second point, IU is 1-10, and the Gophers are 2-9. IU lost by 3 points to UVA (8-3) and the Gophers lost to Southern Cal (9-2) by 2 points @ U$C. Kansas lost to Georgia Tech (8-3) by 42 POINTS! Either Indiana & Minnesota should be closer 65, or Kansas should be sitting between 100 – 150. If I were trying to guess it seems like it would be Minnesota > Kansas > Indiana, yet Sagarin would have you think Kansas is twice as good as either B1G school. I am just not buying that.

If you are saying Sagarin over rated the B12 teams, and under rated the B1G schools, I am in agreement with you. If Sagarin favors the B12 -who does not seem to know how to play defense – then the B1G playing only 1 B12 team (Iowa State) kills the SoS for the B1G. I think this is unfair and incorrect.

If you are saying Sagarin over rated the B12 teams, and under rated the B1G schools, I am in agreement with you. If Sagarin favors the B12 -who does not seem to know how to play defense – then the B1G playing only 1 B12 team (Iowa State) kills the SoS for the B1G. I think this is unfair and incorrect.

Yes, I was just explaining the three major factors in why the B12 has a much higher SoS than the B10. The BCS forces Sagarin to ignore the scores, and his results using points show that this has a huge negative effect for the B10 but a large positive impact on the B12. Playing 9 conference games generally gives them 1 more AQ opponent than B10 teams, too. Finally, the B10 has more deadweight. With one in each division, everybody has played at least one of them too.

I don’t like to say that Sagarin overrated the B12, because the BCS forces him to not use his preferred ranking method. He would have them much closer if it was up to him. It also sounds like an accusation of bias, which seems odd since it is a computer system. You may disagree with his results, but most (if not all) of the computer models have the B12 highly ranked.

Indiana (#142) lost to Ball State (#97) and North Texas (#129). Minnesota (#102) lost to North Dakota State (FCS) and New Mexico State (#123). The computers rank Kansas (#85) ahead because it was able to beat its non-BCS opponents McNeese State (FCS) and N. Illinois (#62). Minnesota’s win over Iowa is the only BCS victory of the 3 (1-24 combined) so this is just who is less ugly.

It seems a bit odd that he couldn’t reschedule it. It seems to me that his athletic and leadership skills would make him a unique candidate. You wouldn’t expect a first chair musician to miss a performance or someone in a debate club miss a debate, so why wouldn’t the same apply to a quarterback?

If the season were to end today, the top 14 in the BCS (eligible for at large bids):
SEC-LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia
Big 12-Oklahoma St., OU, Kansas St.
Pac 12-Stanford, Oregon
B1G-Michigan St.
ACC-Virginia Tech
Others-Boise St., Houston

Next 4 in line-Michigan, Wisconsin, Clemson, Baylor

The dominance of the Big 12 and SEC gives Boise some remote hope. If South Carolina, Georgia and Kansas St. win out, it will remain 8 from those conferences. If bids went out today, it would be 2-SEC, 2-Big 12, 2-Pac 12, B1G, ACC, BE and Houston with Boise being the only eligible team not selected (with only 2 teams per conference, 3 SEC and 1 Big 12 team would be ineligible). Boise would need Stanford or Oregon to bomb out (maybe a huge Oregon loss to Oregon St.) and Clemson or Baylor to replace them in the top 14 instead of Michigan or Wisconsin.

That still provides 9 teams plus the BE AQ without picking Boise State. Reality is that Georgia is likely to lose the SEC CCG and fall out of the top 14. If Michigan beats OSU they are likely to make it in. MSU, WI, and PSU can only be the B1G AQ since any loss will leave them outside the final 14, and two must lose. It is likely the final 14 will have 3 teams that cannot be selected (2 SEC, 1 B12) and one team that won’t (Boise State).

Per the BCS selection rules, any non-AQ team not only needs to be ranked high enough in the polls (Top 14 in BCS or Top 16 in BCS if one of the AQ conference champions is not ranked higher than the non-AQ team) AND be the conference champion to be an automatic qualifier.

Boise State (4-1 in MWC) is ranked higher than TCU (6-0 in conference) in the BCS polls, but if both teams win their final season game, Texas Christian gets the Mountain West Conference title because they had the better conference record and won the head-to-head matchup with Boise State. That means Boise State does not get the automatic qualifier non-AQ bid, but could be an at-large selection.

Texas Christian is currently #20 in the BCS polls. With no Big East team in the top 25, TCU could qualify for the one auto qualifier non-AQ bid if it got into the Top 16 once the season is over and if Houston loses its auto-qualifer bid to the BCS.

The team in the non-AQ driver’s seat is Houston. The Cougars play Tulsa (who is undefeated in conference play), and if they win that game, they’re in the conference championship game. But if Houston doesn’t win the C-USA conference championship, even if they’re in the Top 14 in the polls, then they don’t get an automatic qualifier status for the BCS either. They would be in the at-large category like Boise State.

3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.

No more than one such team from Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, and the Western Athletic Conference shall earn an automatic berth in any year. (Note: a second team may be eligible for at-large eligibility as noted below.) If two or more teams from those conferences satisfy the provisions for an automatic berth, then the team with the highest finish in the final BCS Standings will receive the automatic berth, and the remaining team or teams will be considered for at-large selection if it meets the criteria.

*******
We’ll see how things play out, but if TCU wins the MWC and is in the Top 16 of the BCS (assuming that beats out the Big East champion), then the Horned Frogs would get the BCS auto-qualifier bid if Houston falters down the stretch. If Houston wins out, they’ll get the non-AQ BCS auto-qualifier bid because they’d be ranked higher in the BCS rankings. Boise State looks like it could get into the BCS with an at-large bid only.

Right now the computers are hating the B1G schools even tho they are balanced with (5) FIVE 9-2 schools. Unlike the B12, the B1G can actually play defense! USA Today ranks Michigan State #3, Wisconsin #6, Penn State #8, Illinois #9, Michigan #14, and Ohio State #16 in the Top 20. Texas is the only B12 school in the Top 20, and the SEC has Alabama #1, LSU #2, Georgia #4, South Carolina #5, Florida #17, and Vanderbilt #20. If Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State, and both wind up with 2 losses, how are they better than a 2 loss B1G school? Especially if the B1G school has to play an extra game against a top opponent in the CCG? Sorry to rant, but it just irritates me to no end that folks keep saying how good the B12 is! One of the best B12 schools is now in the B1G, and CU is in the PAC!

Long term true, but the Big 12 played really well out of conference and has 9 conference games. I think going forward the Big Ten will usually be stronger, but this year I think the Big 12 top to bottom is the best conference in the country.

The Big 12 has a bad team in Kansas, but then its other teams with a lot of losses have notched a few significant upsets (Iowa State, Texas Tech) and still done well out of conference.

Because they have not played anybody out of conference! Penn State and Oregon would be sitting on 1 loss each if they had not played SEC schools. Michigan State would be a 1 loss team if they did not schedule Notre Dame. If Penn State and Michigan State win out you would have (2) one loss teams battling in the B1G CCG. Penn State lost to #2 Alabama and #21 Nebraska and they are sitting at #19. Oklahoma lost to #18 Baylor and unranked Texas Tech (who is not even bowl eligible) yet they are sitting at #9. What is the point of the whole “body of work” if the B12 is showing the rest of the football world it is better to take the easy route.

B12 plan to the easy route to the MNC
a) schedule easy OOC
b) use the early OOC wins to say you are the best in the land
c) let crummy in conference teams beat you, but claim how tough they are
d) skip the CCG so you have one less chance to lose
e) coast your way into the MNC by doing nothing to get there

Clemson lost to an unranked NC ST and fell 10 spots, OU did not drop 10 spots when Texas Tech beat them on their own field! I still do not understand Texas at all! How many 6-4 teams been in the BCS in week 13 since they started the BCS? Are there no deserving 8-2 or 7-3 teams that could not have filled out that spot in the BCS? Iowa is 7-4 and at least they have a winning conference record!

I’m not going to go through every B12 schedule, but I don’t think its accurate to say they didn’t play anybody. OSU hosted Arizona, which turned out to be an easy game but they weren’t a cupcake when scheduled. Oklahoma went on the road to face top 10 Florida State.

Texas hosted BYU and went to UCLA. How many BCS schools play a 9 game conference schedule and play two OOC BCS-caliber schools? Not a lot. Their easy game was Rice, which is a lot better than FCS.

Big 10 fans can’t rag on anyone about ooc schedules. Reality is the Big 10, SEC and Big 12 have all been scheduling relatively easy. None of those conferences can get on a soap box.
The Big 12 does have 9 conference games which neither of those have this year and it only has one gimme conference game.
ooc vs. FBS
Big 12 21-3 (+6-0 vs. fcs)
SEC 27-5 (12-0 vs. fcs)

The B12 plays about half of the OOC schedule against schools in BCS conferences that the ACC does! 21 > 12 – Since the MWC had at least 2 BCS schools I added them, which actually helps the B12 numbers by adding 2 to the total to get to 12. You can argue the B12 plays only 3 OOC games, but that did not stop the PAC from playing 19 schools! Even the B1G played 6 more schools than the B12, and Alabama > Arkansas & Southern Cal > TCU. I think the early scheduling against weaker OOC schedules gave folks the impression that the B12 is better than it really is.

Iowa State beats Oklahoma State, but struggles to beat Kansas by a field goal. Texas Tech plays w weak OOC, beats OU in Norman, then gets pummeled by Iowa State. Kansas gets squashed by Georgia Tech, but takes #18 Baylor to OT only to lose by 1 point. Do I think the B12 has some good teams? Yes. Do I think the B12 head to head with other conferences is the top conference? The answer is NO. I liked Alan’s point about head to head and how the schools would fare. If oSu and OU were great, and not just good, they would not have lost to Iowa State and Texas Tech.

a) ACC plays 4 top schools, is balanced, and plays most at 21
b) PAC played the remaining undefeated teams – LSU and Houston
c) B1G gets a big bump from playing Notre Dame
d) SEC plays the most STRONG schools, but only plays 17 total schoolsd) B12 plays the fewest top schools, and fewest schools total at 12

David Brooks (the NYT writer) wrote an editorial that was in the Atlanta Journal Constitution today. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find it on-line. Title was “Don’t be sure you would’ve done more.”

“First came the atrocity, then came the vanity. The atrocity is what Jerry Sandusky has been accused of doing at Penn State. The vanity is the ouraged reaction of a zillion commentators, whose indignation is based on the assumption that if they had been in Joe Paterno’s shoes they would have behaved better.” He has lots of examples demonstrating what people say they would do in a situation like the Penn St. issues is very different from what they actually do. I recommend reading it if its in your paper or if someone can find it on-line. Its a very good article of human behavior.

Perception is always the ruler at the moment. What do you think of this scenario? LSU loses to Arkansas but the BCS computers keep the BCS standing relatively the same just changing out the top three to show the Razorbacks up and the Bengal Tigers down. Don’t know which on of the three SEC West, one loss teams would pay Georgia in the SEC Championship game but for the sake of argument, say Arkansas. Then Arkansas loses to Georgia in the SEC CG. So Geoprgia wins the right as the conference champion to go to the BCS game. Would LSU and Alabama play for the National Championship in a rematch?

If AR beats LSU and the SEC stays 1-2-3 it would be either AL-AR-LSU or AR-AL-LSU (I don’t see LSU staying ahead of AL). Either way, the tiebreaker would come down to BCS rankings, which would eliminate LSU. Then head to head applies, so AL would win the west. AR would only win if LSU only drops to #2 after losing while AL beats AU.

So for your scenario, AL would have to lose to UGA. That would mean an AR/LSU rematch of the last game of the regular season while UGA plays in the Sugar Bowl. I do not see voters approving an LSU/AR rematch, though, unless that game is true classic (not a boring 9-6 punt fest). They’ll move somebody else up to #2 to prevent it.

His scenario has Arky playing in the SECCG. While I’m with you in doubting very seriously that happens, if it did and Arky lost, then LSU & Bama would play in the BCSCG.

In your scenario where Bama gets beat in the SECCG, I disagree with you in that I firmly believe they would still put Arky and LSU in the BCSCG. I think that most agree that LSU has been the best team this year. I don’t see the voters leaving LSU out and putting Arky in (if Bama is in the SECCG, then that means that Arky would be ranked ahead of LSU).

Heck, who would they put in the BCSCG ahead of LSU? Anyone that thinks that LSU wouldn’t prison rape any other one loss team out there needs their head examined. Heck Ok St, VT, Stanford, Boise, and Houston would all get mudholed by LSU.

I currently don’t see a scenario where two SEC west teams aren’t in the BCSCG.

After this past weekend, I can see plenty of scenario’s where they don’t. An Auburn victory (which would considerably more likely than most of the other major upsets this year) would likely rule that out. I also see any victory by Georgia doing the same if OSU wins in Bedlam since the computers love the Cowboys and I just can’t imagine the writers letting two teams that didn’t even win their own division (let alone conference) play for the NC.

I was basing my statement on the OPs scenario where the 3 SEC West teams finish the regular season in the top 3. If they finish the regular season 1, 2, & 3, I don’t think it will matter what happens in the SECCG, you’ll still have 2 SEC west teams playing in the BCSCG.

I agree that that if Bama gets beat by auburn, would push another team into the BCSCG.

But I disagree with you in that if Bama wins, then it won’t matter what happens in the SECCG. The human polls won’t jump OSU over Bama or LSU if both only have one win, and the computers 1/3 vote won’t be enough to move them past either team.

In your scenario where Bama gets beat in the SECCG, I disagree with you in that I firmly believe they would still put Arky and LSU in the BCSCG.

I don’t think the human voters would choose a rematch of the final regular season game.

I think that most agree that LSU has been the best team this year. I don’t see the voters leaving LSU out and putting Arky in (if Bama is in the SECCG, then that means that Arky would be ranked ahead of LSU).

Heck, who would they put in the BCSCG ahead of LSU?

Anyone not from the SEC West, probably 11-1 OkSU.

Anyone that thinks that LSU wouldn’t prison rape any other one loss team out there needs their head examined. Heck Ok St, VT, Stanford, Boise, and Houston would all get mudholed by LSU.

Then my head needs to be examined. I’d favor LSU, but many teams could give them a game because LSU’s offense is weak. That always gives the opponent a puncher’s chance of winning.

I currently don’t see a scenario where two SEC west teams aren’t in the BCSCG.

First off, my statement that I currently don’t see a scenario in which two SEC West teams are in the BCSCG is based on the OPs scenario where the 3 SEC West teams finish the regular season 1-3. Bama losing to auburn is the one scenario that I think another team can get into the game.

As far as another team non-SEC west having a puncher’s chance against LSU, I’ll give you Ok St. That might be the one team that could have a puncher’s chance. But I don’t think the others out there would even have a puncher’s chance. And none of those teams play defense, not even a little bit of defense.

And you may want to go back and look at the results of LSU’s (and Bama’s for that matter) games this year. LSU is averaging 39 points a game (Bama is averaging 36). The only two games they didn’t score 35 or more points was against Bama and Miss St. Just because they choose to run the ball instead of throwing it, doesn’t mean they can’t score big points against teams.

All the more reason to factor scoring margin into the computer component. Going by just wins and losses is a big mistake in my book. 2-3 plays, calls or ball bounces can change a 3-7 pt win to a loss. A 20 pt win is definitive, and should be counted as such.

I hate that wins and losses have basically taken over everything when margin of victory/loss should be considered in some manner.

I don’t see how a team that loses 2 games in the last minute of each is necessarily much worse than a team that loses 1 game by 3 touchdowns and is outclassed the entire 60 minutes. Why do we automatically assume that?

I guess it’s nice to see the rankings look all tidy with the 1-loss teams grouped followed by the 2-loss teams followed by some 3-loss teams for the most part, but that’s just asinine. You really have to look at how these teams are losing their games to see who should be where.

As I said yesterday, humans really struggle to do rankings when there are that many upsets in one day. People need time to think it through but they don’t have that time before their ballots are due. The people will fix their votes some next week though. I expect a lot of shake up even if there aren’t any upsets.

Penn St. manages to shoot itself in the foot (again) by hiring Louis Freeh to head an independent investigation into the sex abuse scandal. For those who don’t know, Freeh is the inept former FBI director who relied on political connections to keep his job even after it was clear he wasn’t competent to investigate shoplifting, let alone lead the nation’s largest domestic intelligence agency.

Penn St. manages to shoot itself in the foot (again) by hiring Louis Freeh to head an independent investigation into the sex abuse scandal. For those who don’t know, Freeh is the inept former FBI director who relied on political connections to keep his job even after it was clear he wasn’t competent to investigate shoplifting, let alone lead the nation’s largest domestic intelligence agency.

@Alan – I actually just had a back-and-forth with Wetzel on Twitter on this column (he responded to my assessment that it was “garbage”, which I admit was a little childish), although he now deleted his Tweets for some reason. Here were my Tweets, anyway (the last one was responding to Wetzel noting that the SEC supported a plus-one system):

@Rich_Cain Usually like @DanWetzel, but that column was garbage. All of his points could be stated about Pac-12. His BCS hate colors things.

Garbage is fair. What is the thesis of the article? That Delaney is too interested in the Big 10? Not interested enough in the Big 10? I cannot figure it out. Just a bunch of criticisms that do not tie in together in any real way.

It’s a hatchet job designed to attack one of the main supporters of the BCS. It’s more anti-BCS venom from an obsessed man. He didn’t mention the P12 going to 9 games and a CCG, or the ACC likely going to 9 games plus a CCG. He mentioned the B12 dropping the CCG but didn’t note that they went to 9 games.

A better example would be the B10 refusing to stoop to the dirty recruiting tactics (oversigning, medical exemption abuse, grayshirting abuse, etc) of the SEC West, but that wouldn’t support Wetzel’s agenda nearly as well. That’s the clearest example of the B10 not trying to compete with the SEC.

Dan needs to realize that Delany’s job is to do what’s best for the B10 in the long term. Doing what Dan Wetzel wants is not part of Delany’s job description.

AZ hired RichRod. I think that’s a great decision. He’ll have OR south up and running with all that Southern CA talent to pick from. AZ needed something to excite the base and RichRod’s offense will do that.

The Syracuse police are resisting attempts by the local DA to get the records of their investigation into the child sexual abuse allegations against the assistant MBB coach. The DA had to get a subpoena, and even then the police dragged their feet.

There may be good reasons for the police not to want to turn over their records, but someone should tell them how bad this looks from the outside.

West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck delivered some pointed comments toward the Big East on his way out of the conference, saying his school was “fortunate” to get out of the league and join the Big 12.

Luck told the Charleston Gazette over the weekend that his program was leaving the Big East “when the ship was seriously going down. I mean, only the tip of the sail was showing.”

If anyone heard some swearing coming from Providence, this was probably why.

I wonder what those road BB games will be like this season. It would be really interesting to see what happens if they have to stick around for another year or two. I’d love to hear Luck just keep ripping Marinatto about once a week as a payback for being forced to stay in the BE.

Luck has never been one to spare words anyways, but I think that it’s his plan to try and piss everyone off so much they don’t have any choice but to throw WVU out. (Of course Marcus Allen tried something similar with Al Davis and we saw how that worked out…)

‘ “Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code,” she wrote, “despite any moral or legal obligation to do so.”

Dr. Triponey ended her note by asking Mr. Curley and Mr. Spanier if these were accurate impressions of Mr. Paterno’s views—and whether they shared them.

Mr. Curley’s response, also reviewed by the Journal, was sent three days later and was copied to Mr. Spanier. “I think your summary is accurate,” it said.’

What was worse, to me, were the changes to policy they enacted after running her out of town so that students who get in trouble don’t face much risk of missing any extra-curricular activities as part of their punishment. Way to cave to a crotchety old man who wants to run his team like it’s still the 70s, PSU.

Penn State is just the perfect situation for the NCAA to find enough for a LOIC. No other school in the country had this sort of God-like athletic department within an athletic department state within a university that is semi-private.

Let’s see how San Diego State plays its cards. If I were SDSU, i would ask the BIG EAST for FULL MEMBERSHIP, not just football-only. SDSU actually has a Top 25 basketball program with a brand name head coach.

I don’t think BE bball is worth enough to SDSU to put up with the very significant costs of shipping their non-revenue teams to the opposite coast all the time, especially since how well you do in the postseason in bball isn’t very tied to what conference you’re in (note the Tark-era UNLV, Calipari’s Memphis, and Butler + Gonzaga to an extent as well).

The BCS going away is the real game changer for ND. Right now ND can make one of the Sugar, Fiesta, Rose, or Orange Bowls and get an $15 million pay day. However if those Bowls are no longer in the BCS, then the Bowls will want tie ins. So you could see:

ND would have zero shot at one of the Big 4 Bowls. They would be stuck having to make a deal with a 3rd tier Bowl. The Big 5 conferences will have phased out ND, the BE, and the non BCS conferences. At that point ND HAS to join someone. They won’t be a have not.

@kingottoiii – I’ve seen many obituaries for Notre Dame independence over the years. Heck, I’ve even written some of them. However, I don’t necessarily agree that ND would be shut out of the “new” retro bowl system. In fact, the Irish could parlay this into even more access. Remember that the Big East is going to be desperate if AQ status is removed. They’ll take partial access to a major bowl if they have to. So, if the Big East and ND partnered together and offered a tie-in for the higher ranked of either the BE champ or ND every year, I think you’ll get a major bowl to sign up for that. That at least preserves some type of higher status for the BE while ND likely ends up in more major bowls than at any point during the BCS era.

For that matter, I could see ND and ACC partnering up for an Orange Bowl slot (or the Orange getting to pick 2 from ACC champ, BE champ, and ND with the third team going to a lesser bowl; Gator? Outback? Alamo? Sun?).

The Orange has be perpetually disappointed with the ACC champ in recent years (I daresay the Big8 champ got them more fans and viewers an any ACC champ outside FSU).

Other option is if a conference is looking for a 2nd bid. Getting part of the primary bid for each conference might be hard, but if the Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar are all going to sign 2nd teams, then its quite possible that conferences might join together to get a position.

Example: Maybe the Orange Bowl signs a deal with the Big 12, Notre Dame, and the Conference USA-Mountain West Alliance which allows it to take any team it wants from the bunch (aside from the Big 12 champ). This might be less ideal to each of these groups than simply having the bowl themselves, but it beats out conceding the bowl to the Big Ten or SEC.

I think it’s very hard to tell how prestige bowl tie-ins will look in the “new retro” system. If there are 8-10 “premium” bowl slots available, 4 of them will be taken by the B10, SEC, B12 and P12 champs. For the rest of the possibilities (ACC champ, BE champ, ND, B10 2nd, SEC 2nd, etc) it gets much murkier. I can see the Cotton prying away the B12 champ and signing up the SEC 2nd choice. I can see the Fiesta, Orange or even Sugar signing up the B10 2nd choice. Perhaps the B12 2nd gets a tie-in as well.

But after that we’ll see one of two things: (1) straight conference-tie ins, in which case ND/BE will be competing against all of the other conferences for a spot. I think this gets scary for ND because it’s not clear to me that the BE/ND package would be selected over even the third choices from the B10 or SEC.

(2) some coalition-based system, because at some point, the Orange or Fiesta will get more value by saying “we’ll take the highest-rated available teams” rather than get stuck with the ACC champ, BE/ND or something like the B10 third choice. Some lesser version of this could happen too, like with Richard’s BE/ACC/ND idea.

With the implementation of the most recent BCS contract in 2006, Notre Dame no longer gets a full BCS share for a BCS game ($14 million at the time, now $18 million) but settled for $4.5 million, the amount given to a second place team from a conference.Additionally, for the length of the four-year contract, the Irish would receive a 1/66th share of BCS money as the 66th team in the BCS – about $1.3 million – when they did not go to a BCS game.

OSU has @ OU in 2016 and versus OU in 2017. OSU did add @ UNC in 2017, so maybe OSU knows they’ll have 5 B10 home games in 2017. If so, I’m not sure why they cancelled with UT (games were @ OSU in 2018 and @ UT in 2019).

It’s too bad, but hopefully they’ll find a decent replacement.

I’m much more upset that they added FAMU for 2013 and paid $850,000. First, I’m against FCS games. Second, why pay an FCS team that much? You might as well add a MAC team. Third, why bring an FCS team from FL when you could find someone closer to home?

“…there is no way Sandusky could have committed crimes against boys in his home because there was always many people in the home. Amendola said Sandusky had six adopted children and three foster children at the time the incidents at his home happened, according to the grand jury report.

—Soo there’s no way Sandusky could have committed these crimes at the house because there were so many kids, especially family members, present…oh and BTW one of those family members is now pressing charges.

Anyone want to hire this guy to lead your defense the next time you’re in trouble?

Please don’t post this kind of information. You are being a “Negative Nelly” and a “Debby Downer” and you could spoil the celebration on the field for the Big 10 and its ambassador, PSU next week and later in a bowl game. Higher tv ratings and revenues distributed from Tier 3 rights is what is really important. Emphasizing these negatives simply hurt the “brand” of the Big 10 and PSU. Besides, while you may infer some culpability by the football program when PSU fires Spannier and Paterno and places the AD on administrative leave or when the Big 10 takes the unprecedented and principled step of removing Coach Paterno’s name from the Coaching Legends trophy, these admissions do not really mean that the Football program is at the center of this scandal until it is proven five years from now in a court of law. Until then, it merely distracts from what is really important for the Big 10, PSU and this thread.

Hawaii really shot itself in the foot by taking a TV pay cut (compared to the $5 million/year it was earning from Oceanic Time Warner Cable) to sign a 2-year deal (for 2012 and 2013 seasons) with the Mountain West for football only.

The Mountain West will look like this in 2013:

Wyoming
Colorado State
(Air Force)
New Mexico
Utah State
Nevada
UNLV
Fresno State
San Jose State

(I am assuming that Air Force has chickened out and will not join the Big East.)

How many of those teams above will actually sell tickets at Aloha Stadium? Probably none of them (with the probable exception of Air Force.)

==

Pitt basketball coach Jamie Dixon actually encouraged Hawaii to apply to the BIG EAST as a football-only member about a month before he reached out to TCU AD Chris Del Conte.

If you were Hawaii, which would you prefer for 2014?

The new Mountain West (after the carcass has been picked clean by the PAC, XII, and BIG EAST)?

Independence (November schedule: BYU, Notre Dame, Army)

BIG EAST (with games vs Boise State, San Diego State, SMU, and Houston)

Hawaii isn’t exactly known for having an adept athletic department. Their previous AD inexplicably left a home game on the table (they can play 13 every year and one year only played 12). The father of a former co-worker of mine who’s a native New Yorker and ended his life in Hawaii once joked that the song about New York contains the line “if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere”; well about Hawaii, they should say “if you can’t make it here, you can’t make it anywhere”.

Hawaii panicked after the Mountain West poached Fresno State and Nevada and the WAC decided to turn itself into new Southland by restocking itself with FCS schools from Texas.

Instead of 1) re-upping with Oceanic Time Warner Cable for at least $5 million/year and go independent in football, or 2) at least talk to the Big East regarding a football-only membership (especially after TCU made the jump), Hawaii decided to sign its football media rights over to the Mountain West Conference for around $1 million/year in 2012 and 2013 in exchange for football-only membership.

The result? Hawaii will still get to play Fresno State, Nevada, Utah State, and San Jose State in 2013, but will make only $1 million in TV money instead of the $5 million for playing the same schools in 2010-2011.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that Hawaiians will be able to watch Hawaii play football because Oceanic Time Warner cable won’t be in any hurry to add the mtn. to its lineup (Time Warner Cable in northern half of the City of San Diego still does not carry the mtn.)

Meanwhile, Boise State and San Diego State will probably make around $8 million in TV money and play in a BCS AQ conference in 2013.

Until the PAC12 comes calling (and that will be a cold day in Hawaii) Hawaii is one of the few schools that would be better off with football independence. Hawaii can schedule home & home without the visiting school losing a home date, sort of a free (except travel) cash game (check CO 13 game 2011 schedule). Hawaii is not as constrained as BCS schools in scheduling, since it only plays 2-3 BCS schools per year. Hawaii could actually improve its schedule as an independent. BCS bowls pay less ($4.5M for BCS buster) after the take is split 8-12 ways with a conference compared to the complete take of the low paying but no expense Hawaii Bowl. So more TV money, more bowl money, and better games as a football indepenent. I have no clue what they were thinking when they made the MWC deal.

Aggie heads are exploding. After taking a 13-0 lead, A&M fell behind 24-16 in the 3rd. Texas scored on short fields given by A&M: forward punt (A&M fumbled), pick-6, 80yd punt return, and interception at A&M 24. A&M took lead at 1:48 with 9 point 4th, but Texas made last second FG to win.

Well, TAMU did blow another double digit lead but they came back to take a 1 point lead late. Then they let Texas drive down for a last second field goal. TAMU’s whole season has gone this way, and their fans won’t be able to live this game down for years.

If UT had lost, would that have led to more pressure to reschedule this series in the near future? I’m guessing the current administration at UT will be happy to sit on this win for along time.

brian, that’s what happened when arkansas left the swc. the rivalry between texas and arkansas was very similar to the texas/oklahoma rivalry and much more intense than anything texas/tamu has ever generated. but texas knew it was not in their interest to continue playing the piggies, so in two years’ time, nobody could remember playing arkansas.

the aggies are going to have trouble maintaining their standing in the state if they can’t schedule consequential games with in-state schools. they will need to fight the impression that they are no longer texas-centric, and kids, parents, and high school programs will cool on them if they simply look like a tomato can in a deep south conference.

if anyone is serious about legislating games between texas and tamu, they need to produce a list of games the past decade where one or both contestants were forced by legislative action to play. i seriously doubt any programs like ohio state or alabama or usc have been instructed who to schedule, and if the texas legislature can’t find precedent among the major schools, they better leave it alone. if the lege does act on this, then the next time a texas-friendly legislature is in session, it needs to notify the aggies who their out-of-conference opponents will be that year.

I agree that it is a bad idea, just to be clear. I could see mandating it once every 4 years at most (so every player has a chance to play in it). UT may sing a different song if their football fortunes change. If they go back into their pre-Mack Brown doldrums they may be more inclined to play TAMU.

UF doesn’t count as a major school, though? I realize it was a while ago, but it was off the top of my head. USC is private, so it can’t be forced to do anything.

What you aren’t acknowledging is that UT and TAMU are in a fairly unique position. How many major instate rivalries have been ended due to realignment? How many people will lose money or jobs based on that game going away? I can see why the politicians are talking about it. I’m betting they don’t actually do anything about it, though.

brian, i think the texas politicos who are mulling this over are primarily aggie sympathizers, at the least. i’m not sure anybody else is that interested. as i said earlier, the big reason aggies want this continued is that they need to play some games that matter in the state. when arkansas bolted, a huge rivalry ended and not a soul lifted a finger (assuming here that souls have fingers) in response. they might have been able to continue the series just as big 8 oklahoma and texas had played for years, but texas knew that cutting arkansas’ ties to the state of texas would really slow that program, and it did. big time. the arkansas of the swc was a major player in the nation pretty much year in and year out.

the whole big 12ish is really unhappy with the ags, and if no texas-based big 12 team plays them, they are going to have a hard time generating much interest around the state unless they make a big splash (of the positive kind) in the sec.

texas’ decision to drop the aggie game was all about strategy. a&m is seriously cash-strapped, and the biggest money-maker for them at kyle field was usually when texas came to town. they are facing a buyout to exit the big 12 and they will get no tv money this year, their fans are arming themselves with pitchforks to oust their coaching staff while bandying about the names of really big-buck coaching hires, and their stadium (which many of the fans are hoping to expand) is desperately in need of expensive repair and updating.

the absolute best thing the longhorns could do to help usher the ags into a conference that would like to suck the life out of the state of texas is to play them every year. texas would be nuts to agree to that.

Although Texas ended the A&M series, it was A&M that is refusing to play Baylor or Texas Tech (you would think they could use the slot reserved for the Texas game). There are two problems with the legislated to play argument. It assumes that A&M controls the legislature over the combined forces of Texas, Texas Tech, and Baylor. It also assumes that the state can dictate football schedules but cannot dictate football conference affiliation. The fact is that as a state school a law could be passed that required A&M to resign from the SEC and apply for membership to the B12 in addition to playing Texas every year. That is why I expect Lofton (A&M president) will try to kill this type of talk once the Texas legislature is back in session (Jan. 2013). At that time A&M will have already played it first SEC season and will have broken the series with Texas. Right now A&M thinks it will get enough recruits that want to play in the SEC that all the in-Texas competition it requires are money games against the likes of Rice, UTEP, North Texas, and Texas State. If that does not work, A&M could play Baylor and Texas Tech every few years. A&M’s next game with Texas is lilely to be in some future Cotton Bowl.

Like I said, I don’t think the politicians will actually do anything. They have to appear to be doing something to appease their base, though.

I think UT should ignore big picture strategy and play the series because it is good for CFB and the players, but I understand why they won’t. I don’t think TCU and TT will boycott TAMU, though (I don’t see TAMU looking to play Baylor any time soon).

I’d like to see UT/TAMU at Jerryworld once every 4 years as a minimum, though. Let every kid have that experience at least once, and give the fans an important rivalry. I’m sure Jerry can make it financially worth while.

brian, you speak of that series as though it mattered. maybe some, it has, but not much. as i said, the texas/arkansas series was a barn-burner, and, while texas/tamu has occasionally caught a little national attention, it has mostly been a snorer of the first order. i don’t think the people of texas love that game like some think they might.

that relationship between texas and tamu has never been the stuff of legend, and in recent years it has gotten really bad. my personal take is that both programs will be better off going separate ways. i hate that, really, but i don’t see any way around it. the two programs could have been good for each other, but maybe both would have had to become somebody else for that to happen. regardless, it is way past saving, i think, and both establishing new existences is probably the best thing that can happen. i can see both becoming better places.

That’s everything that is wrong with UT. A rivalry series played over 100 times does matter. A series between the top two programs in a very large state does matter. It may even be a better series with one in the SEC and one in the B12. It’s sad that this series means more to non-Texans than it does to UT fans.

UT seems to be doing its best to kill everything around it (rivalries, conferences, CFB itself). How long until they find an excuse to kill the OU/UT series, too? It’s a sad commentary on UT fans that they are happy to kill off the AR rivalry and then the TAMU rivalry. This is why so many people hope football karma bites UT in the ass in the near future.

Although Texas ended the A&M series, it was A&M that is refusing to play Baylor or Texas Tech (you would think they could use the slot reserved for the Texas game).

I fully agree with you here. I understand not playing Baylor after Starr’s antics, but they shouldn’t also boycott TT. They could at least play TT neutral site in Dallas every other year or something if they don’t want to go to Lubbock.

As I said earlier, legislating games is almost always a bad idea and I certainly don’t see a need here. I don’t think the politicians will actually do anything but talk, though.

I was just going to ignore this thread, but the sheer amount of wishful thinking repeated by Longhorn fans got to me.

**”the aggies are going to have trouble maintaining their standing in the state if they can’t schedule consequential games with in-state schools.”

A&M is still going to be right off the center of the Texas Triangle. We’ll have about the same number of games in the State of Texas as the Longhorns. Recruits will be excited to come play our opponents in the second biggest college stadium in the state, and their parents won’t have difficulty watching them play the majority of their games.

If A&M feels the need for more games in the state of Texas, it can always schedule schools like SMU and Houston, who won’t be any less desirable than Baylor and TCU in the long term. It could also schedule additional neutral games in Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio if desired against national opponents.

It will be interesting if the administration wants to schedule Tech, who publicly stated their interest in continuing the series before the game this year. That was before the ‘boycott’ meme was apparently started by the Longhorns, so perhaps they’ve changed their minds.

**If you’re making a list of rivalries that are mandated by state legislatures, Clemson-South Carolina should be added.

That said, I don’t want the legislature involved, the A&M administration doesn’t, and from what I’ve seen on Aggie forums, few other Aggies want the legislature involved.

**”a&m is seriously cash-strapped, and the biggest money-maker for them at kyle field was usually when texas came to town”

This is pure nonsense. A&M has been pouring money into facilities for just about every sport (except, oddly enough, football) over the past decade or so. Just like every other sports program in the country (including the one in Austin), they’ve occasionally taken out loans so they can pay for the upgrades over the lifetime of the upgrade.

A&M has consistently been in the black and is in no danger of being unable to meet it’s obligations. While they will lose TV money this year, the program is getting a surge in other revenues. Football attendance was the best ever this year; the least attended game (vs. Kansas) would have placed 8th on A&M’s all-time attendance before this year (and only a couple hundred away from being 6th). Even with the disappointment over this year’s team, there will be enough excitement over the move to the SEC next year to keep attendance strong. It’s been widely reported sales on A&M merchandise have jumped significantly, which is apparently what’s funding all those A&M commercials during SEC games that I’ve long tired of. The non-football sports also seem to be doing better in fan support this year (woman’s basketball being the one that obviously jumps to the top, though others seem to be doing well).

A&M can absorb the one year loss of TV money without hurting the long term health of the athletic department. They’ll likely make that up in the first 5 years of the SEC.

**”I’m sure the Ags will be able to sell some tickets to and generate interest in LSU or Alabama games every year.”

Absolutely. As long as at least one of A&M and LSU are good, I expect the LSU game to pack the stadium as well as any Longhorn game. The rest of the SEC will keep the stadium more full than it ever was before this year.

not wishful thinking, but a kind of cold-eyed look at where things seem to be pointing. that said, i have never considered myself a prognosticator and generally consider the act of soothsaying to be pretty much a uniquely human stupid animal trick.

some here on this board may recall that i’ve always maintained that i’d love to see a&m grow up and become boringly normal like the rest of us. i absolutely do feel that way and embrace this breakup as a real, brass-tacks first step toward that possibility. texas and a&m would do very, very well, in my humble, to stay as far apart as possible for the next couple of millennia, and see if anything develops. i honestly don’t wish harm on a&m, and, in fact, when i get down to basics, truly offer good wishes to them. just somewhere else for the time being.

like i say, though, i try to stay away from predicting. it strikes me as a fool’s errand to try to outguess the future. indeed, before the season when ags were gaily (that used to be a perfectly good word) braying all over the place about a title run, i was quietly eyeing 8-4 for them. or maybe 7-5. like i say, i’m worthless when it comes to seeing into the future.

The Orange Bowl’s nightmare is one step closer to reality. UL is 7-5 (5-2), and no BE team can have a better conference record. Up to 3 teams can split the BE title with UL (RU, UC and the Pitt/WV winner), however. The Orange has to hope any of the other teams win the tiebreaker, because they will all finish at 9-3.

Head to head:
5-2 UL beat RU, WV but lost to UC, Pitt

4-2 RU beat UC, Pitt but lost to UL, WV
4-2 UC beat UL, Pitt but lost to RU, WV

Big East 3 and 4 way tie-breakers take all common games from the tied teams. The team with the best common record wins. If two or more have the best common record, then BCS rank among those teams determines winner, not head to head. So UL-C-WV-R all tied results in UL and WV with 2-1 among opponents. UL only wins if BCS puts them above WV, not likely if WV wins out which is required for them to be tied. Cincinnati still must lose for UL to win BE. All of the Orange bowl officials are looking for a Syracuse loss followed by UCONN loss because with Cincinnati in the mix it is likely to go to BCS ranking knocking out Louisville.

SEC: LSU vs GA
MWC: TCU has tiebreaker, so has won conference
Sunbelt: Arkansas has tiebreaker so has won conference
WAC: LaT needs to win tomorrow, then wins conference with tiebreaker

Big East 3 and 4 way tie-breakers take all common games from the tied teams. The team with the best common record wins. If two or more have the best common record, then BCS rank among those teams determines winner, not head to head.

I thought I had read somewhere that they use the record amongst the tied teams to eliminate teams and then reverted to the 2 team tiebreakers, but no. That said, it really only changes one scenario of the 22 I listed (from UL to WV).

In order to determine the Conference’s representative to the Bowl Championship Series, the procedures listed below will be followed.

All references to “rankings” refer to the BCS Poll released after the regular season is completed for all BIG EAST members.

TWO-WAY TIE
The winner of the head to head match-up will represent the BIG EAST in the Bowl Championship Series.

THREE-WAY TIE
A “MINI-CONFERENCE” IS CREATED AMONGST THE THREE TIED TEAMS

Scenario I:
All three teams have either a 6-1 or 5-2 record and have each won one game and lost one game against the other tied teams in the mini-conference. In this case, the highest ranked team amongst the three earns the bid. If two of the three teams are tied for the highest ranking, the bid is earned by the team winning the head-to-head match up.

Scenario II:
All three teams have 5-2 records, and within the mini-conference, Team A is 2-0, Team B is 1-1, and Team C is 0-2. Team A earns bid regardless of ranking.

FOUR-WAY TIE
A “MINI-CONFERENCE” IS CREATED AMONGST THE FOUR TIED TEAMS

Scenario I:
In the mini-conference, Teams A & B are 2-1, and Teams C & D are 1-2. The higher ranked of the 2-1 teams earns the bid. If the 2-1 teams tie for the highest ranking, the bid goes to the team that won the head-to-head match up.

Scenario II:
In the mini-conference, Team A is 3-0, Team B is 2-1, Team C is 1-2, and Team D is 0-3. Team A earns bid regardless of ranking.”

—

Head to head only matter for a 2 team tie, as dumb as that is. Of course, what else should one expect from the BE and their fantastic leadership? Why use the results of conference games to determine your conference champ when you can use OOC games instead?

Pitt gave away the game with their horrendous offense in the second half. Coach, I don’t care that you had to play a 3rd string true freshman RB. He’s still a better runner than your QB is. You might want to teach your QB to throw the ball rather than get sacked every other pass play, too. I blame Wannstedt for the lack of QB choices, but Graham needs to coach him up.

Pitt is eliminated from the BE race.

Head to head:
5-2 UL beat RU, WV but lost to UC
4-2 RU beat UC but lost to UL, WV
4-2 WV beat RU, UC but lost to UL
3-2 UC beat UL but lost to RU, WV

P12 details
OR wins the North if they beat OrSU tomorrow. If OrSU wins, then Stanford wins the North.

UCLA wins the South if they beat USC tomorrow, or if CO beats Utah, or if UCLA, ASU and Utah all lose. ASU wins if UCLA loses while ASU and Utah win. Utah wins if UCLA and ASU both lose while Utah wins.

You know, if you had asked me 2 weeks ago, I’d have said the Big 12 and Pac-12 (and possibly the ACC) would have had more interesting CCGs (ESPN basically made Bedlam the de facto Big 12 CCG on ABC, etc.), but now Michigan State versus Penn State/Wisconsin looks like the most interesting matchup outside of the SEC CCG (which has obvious NC implications).

Because Colorado vs Utah and Cal vs Arizona State play on Friday, UCLA will know whether it needs to win vs USC on Saturday to get into the Pac 12 Championship game.

Utah is down 10 at home to Colorado as I write this. If that result were to hold, then UCLA will win the Pac 12 South via a tiebreaker against Arizona State.

The Alamo Bowl was all set to pick Utah, but that could change if Utah were to lay an egg against Colorado. (The Alamo Bowl will then take Washington instead. U-Dub fans travel well.)

(I expect Arizona State to run all over Cal, which appears to be going through the motions this week after getting Sunday and Monday off. Cal has been known to tank the final game of the season, as it did in 2009, in order to avoid losing money by having to play in the Sun Bowl. Cal fans are notorious for being daytrippers who don’t travel to minor bowls.)

The San Francisco Bowl (Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl) is facing a nightmare scenario:

MAC vs Sun Belt

Why?

Army is ineligible so the San Francisco Bowl has to go to its backup agreements.

ACC #9 won’t be available because Miami has self-imposed a bowl ban

WAC #4 probably won’t be available after Hawaii laid an egg against Fresno last week. Hawaii must sweep Tulane and BYU to be bowl-eligible

That would leave MAC #5 to fill one slot. The San Francisco Bowl is looking at Temple.

The San Francisco Bowl was counting on Cal being available to fill the Pac 12 #6 slot (which would actually be #7 because Stanford is being penciled into the Fiesta Bowl.) None of the other bowls contracted with the Pac 12 want Cal because its fan base is notorious for not traveling to minor bowl games.

Alas, UCLA might end up losing bowl eligibility because it has to play a 13th game.

If UCLA were to lose to USC and to Oregon/Stanford, then Cal will move up to the Vegas Bowl and the Pac 12 won’t be able to fill its slot in the San Francisco Bowl.

(Unless of course ESPN Regional Television, Inc., which owns the Vegas Bowl, gets involved in horsetrading. The Vegas Bowl would love to get its hands on a leftover B1G team such as Penn State instead of Cal.)

==

The defunct Silicon Valley Classic went out of business after drawing only 7000 for a MAC vs Sun Belt matchup (Northern Illinois vs Troy.)

The true P12 South champ is bowl ineligible due to NCAA violations
The official P12 South champ is bowl ineligible due to losing the CCG
The #3 and #4 teams in the P12 South could get the P12’s top 2 non-BCS bowl slots

The Holiday certainly doesn’t want UW again. A 7-5 ASU would be attractive to the Alamo or Holiday bowls. Utah could get pushed to Vegas, but I’m thinking someone else might want them over Cal and a 6-6 P10 team.

Alamo Bowl was all set to take Utah, but the loss puts Utah at 4-5 in conference play.

The Pac 12 allows its bowl partners to go down 1 game in the conference standings to take another team (i.e. take a 4-5 team ahead of a 5-4 team) to make sure that a bowl doesn’t take a 3-6 team over a 6-3 team because the 3-6 team “is a bigger brand” or “travels better” thank the 6-3 team.

The projected Pac 12 bowl “draft” (assuming that Stanford goes to the Fiesta, and UCLA goes 6-7 and ends up staying home because of the extra game):

Alamo – Washington

(Alamo made the mistake of taking Arizona over Washington last year. Zona got blown out.)

Holiday – Arizona State (even if Dennis Erickson were fired, because Utah isn’t big enough of a brand to justify passing on ASU)

Sun – Utah

Vegas – Cal or non-Pac 12 team (if the Vegas Bowl/ESPN Regional Television, inc. were to cut a deal with the San Francisco Bowl so that Cal can play another home game)

Alamo Bowl was all set to take Utah, but the loss puts Utah at 4-5 in conference play.

The Pac 12 allows its bowl partners to go down 1 game in the conference standings to take another team (i.e. take a 4-5 team ahead of a 5-4 team) to make sure that a bowl doesn’t take a 3-6 team over a 6-3 team because the 3-6 team “is a bigger brand” or “travels better” thank the 6-3 team.

Other than OR and Stanford, nobody that is eligible will be better than 5-4 (assuming USC beats UCLA). UCLA is 5-3, UW and ASU are 4-4 and Cal is 3-5, with Utah done at 4-5. To me, that means UW, Utah and the ASU/Cal winner will all be in the same pool, and I assumed an ASU win for what I wrote above.

The choice of Utah over Cal is somewhat bowl dependent, but I’m guessing Utah’s fans are more excited about having new bowls and new cities (except San Diego) than Cal’s reputation for traveling to mediocre bowls. The Holiday doesn’t want UW again.

Considering the troubles over at State College as well as the funk that Purdue and Illinois seem to be in (along with the ever bad Indiana), it looks like OSU versus Wisconsin is going to the Leaders matchup this decade.

Any idea on what happens to Fickell? Does he stay on as a coordinator or what?

The “official” rumors all say he was told he’ll be taken care of. He was told his 2 year contract as an assistant would be honored, so he’ll get at least a year on staff if he wants it or else a year’s salary for nothing. My guess is he stays on the staff as a top recruiter and maybe DC or co-DC again.

If there is one fundamental truth about the B10, it is that IL will be generally bad but then pop up for one year to win the conference or come close. It doesn’t matter what sort of funk they’ve been in.

I also doubt PSU will be down for a prolonged period of time. I don’t see NCAA penalties coming, and JoePa was going to have to leave eventually. I think PSU will hire a good coach and be pretty good by 2013. 2012 is the one year that might suffer from this scandal and the coaching change. If the coaching search is prolonged, leading to a bad recruiting class, then maybe it takes another year or two to recover.

That said, it does look like it will be OSU and WI fighting for the Leaders in the near future. That’s why I hope Jerry Kill can get MN back to at least being decent so WI’s schedule isn’t so much easier than OSU’s. I also hope NE gets and stays good to keep PSU’s schedule tough. What may be just as important is the impact this has on the Legends.

I’m curious to see how the Legends develops. I think you’ll see MI and NE at the top, which will hurt MSU and IA some. However, MSU has IN locked and IA gets PU which helps them out. NE gets a down (for now) PSU while MI gets an OSU that should be back at the top.

I could easily see The Game becoming a divisional knock out game fairly often, where both teams have a chance to win their respective divisions and the loser is knocked out of the race. I still expect rematches to be unusual. I’d expect WI/PSU and NE/IA to be the same, but only in one division obviously.

Well, I thank Luke Fickell for his service but it’s time for a change. Luke was put in a tough spot and did pretty well, but he clearly needs some seasoning as a head coach before being ready to coach at OSU. I wonder what would have happened if he’d gotten the job in December or January and had the chance to replace the offensive staff. I never liked the offensive staff under Tressel, and I got the impression the Luke mostly left them to their own devices. The youth and injuries on defense killed this team anyway.

I’m personally not a fan of hiring Urban Meyer, but to show I’m not a zealot on the issue here’s a quick summary of him. I can see why so many people want him, and if OSU does hire him I hope he

Pros:
1. 10 years of head coaching experience (6 in SEC)

2. Track record of success

2004 National Coach of the Year
2 National Championships
4 conference championships (2 SEC in 6 years)
3 division championships in 6 years

1 perfect season
3 1-loss seasons

Overall 104-23 (0.819)
SEC 36-13 (0.735)

3. Ohio ties

Born and raised in OH
Went to college in OH (UC)
Coached at St. X, OSU
Head coach at BGSU

4. OSU ties

GA at OSU
Earle Bruce is a mentor and friend

5. Actually believes in all 3 phases of the game, not just defense and special teams

Cons:
1. Off the field issues with many players
This is not what OSU needs right now, and we’ve been down that path before with John Cooper.

2. Poor interactions with the media
Perhaps the time as ESPN will help, but his handling of the press at UF was horrible. All that does is lead to more negative coverage which is not what OSU needs.

3. Health/burn out led him to quit twice at UF
I know he got his issue diagnosed, but the pressure and demands at OSU are at least as bad as at UF. Can he find a balance that lets him coach for 7-10 years? Will that balance hurt his results?

4. Gimmick offense
I much prefer a pro style offense to a spread, and so do many players. As defenses get more and more practice stopping the spread, the pro style gains advantages.

5. SEC/ESPN taint
Being part of my two least favorite CFB entities doesn’t endear him to me either.

As someone who’s pro-Meyer->tOSU, I’d like to offer a quick rebuttal to your cons (obviously, I agree with all ur pros):

1) Yes, he has had off-field issues with players, however, after tattoo-gate, I think the OSU athletic department is going to beef up its compliance department, so, hopefully these matters won’t even be in his hands

2) As you’ve mentioned, his time at ESPN should have hopefully polished this up a bit for him. Am I saying that he’s suddenly going to become perfect with the media? No, however, hopefully he’s learned how to pick and choose his battles

3) Obviously, all Buckeye fans are worried about this, however I think that his year away from the game has shown him how to perform some sort of balancing act. The thing to remember is that he had been in coaching full-bore for 10 straight years before that burn out, I think